A Formative Analysis of Interactive Classroom Communication Systems Used in Secondary School Classrooms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extensive research has been done on the use of Interactive Classroom Communication Systems (ICCS) in higher education, but not in secondary schools. This chapter provides a detailed overview of the benefits, challenges, and strategies observed when using ICCS in higher education. This overview is then used to analyze and interpret quantitative and qualitative data collected from 659 secondary school students. The main benefits that students identified for using ICCS were increased use of formative assessment, higher engagement and motivation, enhanced participation, and improved focus during class. Students were relatively neutral, though, with respect to whether ICCS improved class discussion or learning. The main challenges that students reported were increased stress and uncertainty of answers when ICCS were used in a formal test situation. Males were significantly more positive toward ICCS, as were students who had higher comfort levels with technology. When ICCS were used for formative assessment as opposed to formal tests, students were significantly more accepting. The chapter concludes with suggestions for educators and future research.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".