MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139024900 · doi:10.5430/ijhe.v2n4p143

“What do I do here?”: Higher Order Learning Effects of Enhancing Task Instructions

2013· article· en· W2139024900 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Susanna Chamberlain, Danni Zuvela

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Higher Education · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicStudent Assessment and Feedback
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGriffith University
KeywordsPsychological interventionTask (project management)ComprehensionExplicationPsychologyOrder (exchange)Reading comprehensionComputer scienceMathematics educationReading (process)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reports the findings of a one-year research project focused on a series of structured interventions aimed at enhancing task instruction to develop students’ understanding of higher assessment practices, and encouraging higher order learning. It describes the nature and iterations of the interventions, made into a large-enrolment online first-year foundational academic skills unit, and analyses the effects of these interventions. The conclusions drawn are that student comprehension of assessment practices can be improved significantly through the expansion and explication of task instructions, and that these improvements may be transferable to other large, first year and online teaching contexts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.253
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.341 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Higher EducationSame topicStudent Assessment and FeedbackFrench-language works237,207