MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Learning Toolkit

2010· book-chapter· en· W2491817975 on OpenAlexaff
Philip C. Abrami, Robert Savage, Gia Deleveaux, Anne Wade, Elizabeth J. Meyer, Catherine LeBel

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2010
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuiteComputer scienceModular designReading (process)LiteracyField (mathematics)Scale (ratio)Mathematics educationPsychologyPedagogyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this chapter the authors summarize the design, development, testing, and dissemination of the Learning Toolkit—currently a suite of three highly interactive, multimedia tools for learning. ABRACADABRA is early literacy software designed to encourage the development of reading and writing skills of emerging readers, especially students at-risk of school failure. The authors highlight the important modular design considerations underlying ABRACADABRA; how it scaffolds and supports both teachers and students; the evidence on which it is based; the results of field experiments done to date; and directions for future research, development, and applications. They also present ePEARL and explain how it can be used with ABRACADABRA to promote self-regulation, comprehension and writing. They briefly discuss ISIS-21 the prototype of a tool designed to enhance student inquiry skills and promote information literacy. As an evidence-based toolkit available without charge to educators, the authors believe the suite of tools comprising the Learning Toolkit breaks new ground in bringing research evidence to practice in ways that promote wide scale and sustainable changes in teaching and learning using technology.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0980.062

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations14
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIGI Global eBooksSame topicReading and Literacy DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207