Work in progress — An innovation merging “classroom flip” and team-based learning
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work in progress compares two versions of a “classroom flip” instructional strategy in which lectures are moved from inside class to outside class. Class time is then spent on problem solving and feedback. In previous offerings of this materials science course, students were asked to read instructor-supplied lecture notes and complete an on-line warmup assignment prior to class. Informal cooperative learning activities such as think-pair-share were used during class, and clickers provided a mechanism for probing understanding and providing feedback. In the most recent offering, students viewed instructor-prepared multimedia microlectures and took an individual quiz as homework, then repeated the quiz and completed a problem set with an assigned team during class. Thus, the redesigned course delivered multimedia rather than text lectures, and utilized a structured team-based learning strategy rather than informal cooperative learning structures. Moreover, higher level “material selection challenges” were added to the redesigned course. This paper summarizes the planned assessment and evaluation methods to compare the two classroom flip models; results and analysis are not yet complete.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it