The virtual lecture hall: utilisation, effectiveness and student perceptions
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
Abstract We presently introduce the Virtual Lecture Hall (VLH), an instructional computer‐based platform for delivering Microsoft PowerPoint slides threaded with audio clips for later review. There were 839 male and female university students enrolled in an introductory psychology class who had access to review class lectures via the VLH. This tool was made available through the course website following the first midterm. Approximately 20% used the resource, and 18% completed a five‐item survey tapping their perceptions of whether the VLH enhanced learning or increased grades; and whether they wanted the resource in other courses. The total number of student accesses was calculated, as was the total duration (in minutes) that students used the VLH. After accounting for initial midterm test score differences, results showed that students who used the VLH for 100 minutes or more scored, on average, 15% higher in their second midterm. The student perceptions of the VLH were also highly favourable. Directions for future research in resource development and implications for educators are also discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it