The Differential Effects of Interactive versus Didactic Pedagogy Using Computer-Assisted Instruction
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reports on the results of a representative sample meta-analysis that explored the effects of interactive versus didactic pedagogy using computer-assisted instruction on measures of academic achievement. A systematic literature search revealed 40 studies, from which 55 effect sizes were extracted. The random effects model of analysis of these effect sizes revealed that the overall positive mean effect size of 0.175 was significantly different from zero; indicating that, on average, students receiving computer-assisted instruction within interactive learning settings outperformed students receiving computer-assisted instruction within didactic learning settings on measures of academic achievement. The mixed effect analysis of moderator variables revealed statistical significance for the “education level” (i.e., elementary, secondary, higher education), “nature of technology” (i.e., interactive, presentation), and “technology saturation” (i.e., 100%, 50–99%, less than 50%) variables. The theoretical and practical implications of these results, as well as future research recommendations are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it