EXPERIMENTAL ONLINE CASE STUDY FOR A BREAKTHROUGH IN STUDENT ENGAGEMENT: FOCUS GROUP RESULTS
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
A new type of case study, called the real-time case (RTC), was produced in the fall of 2001 and distributed via the Internet to business classes at four universities in the US and Canada. The real-time case presented the story of one company's growth and development throughout a 14-week semester. A case writer stationed full-time at the subject company published case installments weekly on the Web, allowing students to view the company-building process as it happened. The 14-week coverage of RTC enabled students to study the subject company in unprecedented depth and detail. RTC's real-time interactivity allowed students to share their analyses and best thinking with the company leadership during the company’s decision-making process.A major objective in producing the case was to heighten student engagement with the case material. To evaluate whether this objective was achieved, a survey and a focus group discussion were conducted with one of the participating MBA classes. Results from the survey and the focus group showed a high degree of engagement, plus many other benefits from the new type of case study.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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