MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2233339037

An examination of the effect of capsi as a learning system in developing knowledge and critical thinking in two blended learning courses

2009· article· en· W2233339037 on OpenAlexaffabout
Louis Svenningsen

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCritical thinkingMathematics educationSection (typography)The InternetComputer sciencePsychologyWorld Wide Web
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The growth of the Internet has begun to make an impact on how course information is delivered, leading to a new pedagogical approach called blended learning (Concannon, Flynn & Campbell, 2005; Dzubian et al. 2004). One pedagogical design that facilitates this changing approach combines Keller's Personalized System of Instruction (Brothen & Wambach, 1999; Keller, 1968) with Web-based technology, resulting in a learning-management method called Computer-Aided Personalized System of Instruction (CAPS!) (Pear & Kinsner, 1988). Three experiments were conducted in order to assess CAPSI in regard to student course knowledge and critical thinking development. These experiments incorporated three different research designs. Experiments 1 and 2 were conducted in a first year Introduction to University course at the University of Manitoba. In Experiment 1 two lecture sections received a CAPSI assignment while two received an extra paper assignment. The results indicate that the CAPSI sections performed significantly better on a final exam and a critical thinking question in the final exam. There was also a positive, but non-significant difference between the CAPSI and the non-CAPSI sections on the content questions and on a measure of critical thinking. In Experiment 2, one lecture section of Introduction to University received a CAPSI assignment, while another lecture section was assigned a research paper. Students in both lecture sections were assessed at the same level for critical thinking on the ACTM prior to the CAPSI or paper assignment. There was a significant difference in scores between sections in favour of the CAPSI section after the completion of the CAPSI or paper assignment. Experiment 3 involved students in two sections of first year Introduction to Psychology course at the University of Winnipeg. In this experiment, the CAPSI group performed better on four multiple-choice exams administered during the course. These difference, however, were not statistically significant, possibly due to a significantly higher dropout rate in the non-CAPSI section than in the CAPSI section. Over all three experiments, the CAPSI sections consistently outperformed the sections with which they were compared with, indicating that CAPSI is an effective empirically based educational methodology.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)→Same topicOnline and Blended Learning→French-language works237,207→