MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2571958667 · doi:10.1080/87567555.2016.1232693

Applied Gamification: Reframing Evaluation in Post-Secondary Classrooms

2017· article· en· W2571958667 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCollege Teaching · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational Games and Gamification
Canadian institutionsMacEwan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive reframingAutonomyMathematics educationStudent engagementPsychologyPedagogyWork (physics)Social psychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This piece reports on an early attempt at gamification (reframing post-secondary classrooms drawing on the structure of games). The attempt began in the 2011–2012 academic year and is structured to allow students substantial autonomy in determining which assignments, and how many of them, to complete over the course of the semester. Initial results show small increases in overall student achievement and suggest students may take greater risks in their learning in gamified classrooms. Themes in student responses to gamified classrooms are reported, challenges for both faculty and students in employing such an approach (e.g., pacing student work, confronting assumptions about the nature of academic work, and communicating the nature of the system) are discussed, along with strategies that can help address them.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.324 · 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