MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2298211336 · doi:10.1057/9781137440068_10

Using Screen Capture Software to Improve the Value of Feedback on Academic Assignments in Teacher Education

2015· book-chapter· en· W2298211336 on OpenAlexaff
Steve Mann

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · 2015
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicStudent Assessment and Feedback
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCursor (databases)Computer scienceSoftwareContext (archaeology)MultimediaValue (mathematics)Focus (optics)Component (thermodynamics)Audio feedbackHuman–computer interactionEngineeringArtificial intelligenceOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The provision of feedback on academic writing tasks and assignments is an integral component of teacher education. This article focuses on audio-feedback provided through screen capture software (in this case Jing) in a UK teacher education context. The advantage of screen capture software (SCS) is that you can highlight the actual part of the text that you want to focus on (using a cursor and highlighting tools). You can simultaneously use voice comments to provide feedback. Additionally, through SCS, you can draw attention to other sites and resources (websites and online tools).

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.292 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooksSame topicStudent Assessment and FeedbackFrench-language works237,207