Using Facebook to Engage Microbiology Students Outside of Class Time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Learning microbiology can be made fun by writing funny lines related to microbiology. Students were tasked to create their own pick-up lines and explain these basNumerous usage studies show that a high percentage of college age students are subscribers of the social media service Facebook. Modern teaching methods have a high emphasis on student engagement in the classroom, however, not all students participate equally and therefore it is important to find alternate methods for student engagement. The popularity of social media services and the wealth of online biology resources therefore seem like an obvious way to additionally engage students, particularly non-traditional students who may be less likely to participate in class discussions. In order to investigate how to engage students using this tool, I set up a Facebook group for my medical microbiology class over two semesters. Afterwards I surveyed students on its usefulness. The feedback was mostly positive, and of the resources shared with students, they were most likely to view online videos. Students also found it helpful to have an alternate means of interacting with the instructor and their peers.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".