Co-creating Value in Higher Education: The Role of Interactive Classroom Response Technologies
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
As competition intensifies, it is essential that higher education providers endeavour to develop and offer high quality, satisfaction-creating service experiences. This requires a comprehensive understanding of the factors that lead to positive perceptions of the institutions services. Current perspectives suggest that the student should be engaged as an active co-producer of the university experience. Interactive classroom technologies may enhance the student experience by encouraging participation. This study examines whether student perceived value, namely social or functional value, satisfaction, and loyalty differs for students participating in a personal response technology enabled classroom experience, versus a more traditional classroom experience. A partial least squares approach was adopted using a sample of 184 students. The use of personal response technology was not found to be positively related to the student experience. In the current context, it appeared to break classroom social patterns resulting in an individualistic, disengaging educational experience. Interestingly, in the traditional, non-technology condition social interaction was enhanced and social value strongly determined students’ perceptions of loyalty. These results suggest that it is the pedagogy, and not the technology that matters in higher education provision. Conclusions, implications and opportunities for future research are presented.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it