MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166139640

Learning Style and Preference for Online Learning Support: Individual Quizzes versus Study Groups.

2006· article· en· W2166139640 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLearning Styles and Cognitive Differences
Canadian institutionsLaurentian UniversityMacEwan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreferencePsychologyMathematics educationLearning stylesStyle (visual arts)Visual learningCognitive styleOnline learningMultimediaComputer scienceCognitionMathematicsVisual arts
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forty-eight college students participated in an ABAB analysis; the A condition was online study groups and the B condition was individual online quizzes. The effect of A and B on student satisfaction and achievement was determined. The Index of Learning Styles categorized students on four dimensions of learning style (active-reflective, visual-verbal, sequential-global, sensing-intuitive). Active learners expressed preference for face-to-face study groups rather than online study groups and for online quizzes rather than pencil-and-paper quizzes. Visual learners expressed preference for online quizzes rather than online study groups. Such preferences were validated by decreased achievement under the online study group condition. At the college level, students are aware of their learning style and the conditions that facilitate their learning.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.369
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.267 · 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