MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171091929 · doi:10.21432/t2459c

Exploring the impact of learning objects in middle school mathematics and science classrooms: A formative analysis

2008· article· en· W2171091929 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Robin Kay, Liesel Knaack

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Learning and Technology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOpen Education and E-Learning
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormative assessmentMathematics educationHumanitiesPsychologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study offers a formative analysis of the impact of learning objects in middle school mathematics and science classrooms. Five reliable and valid measure of effectiveness were used to examine the impact of learning objects from the perspective of 262 students and 8 teachers (14 classrooms) in science or mathematics. The results indicate that teachers typically spend 1-2 hours finding and preparing for learning-object based lesson plans that focus on the review of previous concepts. Both teachers and students are positive about the learning benefits, quality, and engagement value of learning objects, although teachers are more positive than students. Student performance increased significantly, over 40%, when learning objects were used in conjunction with a variety of teaching strategies. It is reasonable to conclude that learning objects have potential as a teaching tool in a middle school environment. L’impacte des objets d’apprentissage dans les classes de mathématique et de sciences à l’école intermédiaire : une analyse formative Résumé : Cette étude présente une analyse formative de l’impacte des objets d’apprentissage dans les classes de mathématique et de sciences à l’école intermédiaire. Cinq mesures de rendement fiables et valides ont été exploitées pour examiner l’effet des objets d’apprentissage selon 262 élèves et 8 enseignants (414 classes) en science ou mathématiques. Les résultats indiquent que les enseignants passent typiquement 1-2 heures pour trouver des objets d’apprentissage et préparer les leçons associées qui seraient centrées sur la revue de concepts déjà vus en classe. Quoique les enseignants aient répondu de façon plus positive que les élèves, les deux groupes ont répondu positivement quant aux avantages au niveau de l’apprentissage, à la qualité ainsi qu’à la valeur motivationnelle des objets d’apprentissage. Le rendement des élèves aurait aussi augmenté de façon significative, plus de 40%, quand les objets d’apprentissage ont été exploités avec une variété de stratégies d’enseignement. Il serait donc raisonnable de conclure que les objets d’apprentissage ont un potentiel comme outils d’enseignement à l’école intermédiaire.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.544
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.227 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations8
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Learning and TechnologySame topicOpen Education and E-LearningFrench-language works237,207