Gender differences in student performance in large lecture classrooms using personal response systems (‘clickers’) with narrative case studies
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 study investigated gender differences in science learning between two pedagogical approaches: traditional lecture and narrative case studies using personal response systems (‘clickers’). Thirteen instructors of introductory biology classes at 12 different institutions across the USA and Canada used two types of pedagogy (Clicker Cases and traditional lecture) to teach eight topic areas. Three different sets of multiple regression analysis were conducted for three separate dependent variables: posttest score, change in score from posttest to final, and transfer score. Interactions between gender and pedagogical approach were found across the three analyses. Women either performed better with Clicker Cases, or about the same with either instructional method, but men performed markedly better with lectures in most topic areas. Our results suggest that men and women experience two pedagogical approaches—Clicker Cases and lectures—differently, and that Clicker Cases are more favorable for women than for men.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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