Videoconferencing? Assessing its effectiveness as a teaching tool in the high school
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the relationship between distance learning, engagement, and field trips to art museums. The study aims to answer two questions: (1) Are indicators for engagement in museum settings, as identified by Griffin and Symington (1999), being met through videoconferencing technology? and (2) What are the best practices of videoconference field trips to art museums? Two long-range goals for this study are: (i) to identify the roles and competencies necessary for conducting effective videoconference field trips to art museums; and (ii) to enhance engagement of videoconference field trips to art museums. This research project took place over the course of the 2007/2008 school year and involved the use of videoconferencing in the art classroom at St. Thomas Aquinas Secondary School in Lindsay, Ontario. Four different groups visited a different art museum at a distant location. Fifty-eight students were administered the Rubric for Assessing Student Engagement of Learning in a Museum Setting (Table 5, Appendix A), developed for this study in order to determine students' perception of the program's overall level of engagement qualities. Results reveal that many indicators for engagement are being met but at varying degrees. Although many students responded favorably to the experience and felt that they had learned something new, the opportunity provided by museums to purposefully handle objects, materials and ideas was inconsistent. In addition to including quality hands-on activities in museum settings that are visited from a distance, this study also reveals that students expected to see more of the museum environment, exhibits and artwork.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".