MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165960383 · doi:10.1177/2158244014564359

Pair Tests in a High School Classroom

2014· article· en· W2165960383 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rachaniphorn Ngotngamwong

Bibliographic record

VenueSAGE Open · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLazinessPsychologyTest (biology)Quarter (Canadian coin)Mathematics educationSocial psychologyOutcome (game theory)Developmental psychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was conducted to find out how high school students responded to pair tests: the collaboration of two students in taking a test together. The objectives of pair tests were intended to create excitement, a higher motivation to study, increase learning through discussion, and close collaboration during a test. The outcome of the study indicated that the majority of the students enjoyed pair tests, and there were increases in motivation, discussion, learning, and collaboration. The main downsides of pair tests were disagreements over answers and the laziness of some test takers as this behavior created negative impacts on their responsible partners. The overall picture of pair tests was positive, and it is recommended that they are administered not more than once a quarter.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.375
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.354 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAGE OpenSame topicInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsFrench-language works237,207