Exploring the Use of an Online Quiz Game to Provide Formative Feedback in a Large-Enrollment, Introductory Biochemistry Course
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
In our large-enrollment, introductory biochemistry course for nonmajors, we provide students with formative feedback through practice questions in PDF format. Recently, we investigated possible benefits of providing the practice questions via an online game (Brainspan). Participants were randomly assigned to either the online game group or the PDF-only group. Both groups received identical practice questions and correct/incorrect feedback only, with no additional detail. We believed that the game might increase engagement with the material and improve performance on the examination. However, we found that the exam scores of the two groups did not differ. The attitude of participants toward the practice questions was similar for both formats, with agreement that the questions were appropriate for course objectives and helped in preparation for examinations. However, the game users were less likely to agree that the questions provided useful feedback on learning, suggesting that they had greater expectations for the practice questions delivered as a game. Game users were also more than twice as likely to state that they wanted the other or both formats.
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 | 0.035 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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