Twenty-first century learning, technology, and the impact on student engagement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between twenty-first century instructional methods and student learning experiences. To do so, a typical and representative group of eight students was selected for qualitative interviews which ascertained student perception of their engagement in a typical New Media class. The study determined the perceived impact of a "student-centered instructional approach to video creation" on levels of student engagement in order to understand the nature of engagement and how they moved towards higher levels of independent learning. Transcripts of these interviews were used to identify a thematic structure of student perceptions of their engagement in a classroom where a "student-centered instruction approach to video creation" was used. Lastly, using the teacher's professional reflections, notes, and anecdotal reports from the class, students' stories of engagement were created to illustrate each unique journey toward self-engaged independence from the teacher's perspective. The results of this data pointed to three meta-themes. Meta-theme 1: Positive Relationships and Affective Climate, Meta-theme 2: Personalized, Student-centered Supported Independence, and Meta-theme 3: Accelerated Lift and Independent 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".