MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2597542154 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.6542

DESIGN OF MASTERY-BASED TUTORIAL IN THE BRIGHTSPACE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT FOR A FIRST YEAR THERMODYNAMICS COURSE

2017· article· en· W2597542154 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Joyce Valencerina, Douglas Ruth, Jillian Seniuk Cicek

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsCourseworkFormative assessmentMathematics educationCritical thinkingComputer scienceCourse (navigation)Mastery learningPsychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

University level studies can be a daunting experience for students in their first year, especially for students pursuing engineering. Not only are students expected to adapt to a new and intense learning environment, they need to develop a critical thinking approach for their coursework, which is essential in solving engineering problems. The Faculty of Engineering at the University of Manitoba uses the Brightspace Learning Environment by D2L Corporation (UM Learn) as a primary means for delivering course content, communicating with students, and assessing student performance. Of interest are the assessment tools, which can be adapted to enforce good problem solving habits and check students’ learning progress. This paper discusses the design of a mastery-based tutorial for a first year thermodynamics course that provides supplementary formative assessments to ensure students have mastered course content. A survey was distributed to evaluate the online tutorial in which students expressed mixed responses to its usefulness, although many agreed that it supported learning.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicEngineering Education and Curriculum DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207