Do clickers work for students with poorer grades and in harder courses?
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
We studied the impact of clickers, also known as electronic student response systems, on the performance of students on two undergraduate finance courses. Consistent with some of the recent literature, we found that clickers have very little impact on student performance, as measured by final course grades. Further, we found that clickers do not have a significant impact on course grades for students in relation to their designated performance ability (weak versus strong) or whether the course in question is less or more difficult. However, after simultaneously controlling for course difficulty and student aptitude, we found that clickers have a meaningfully positive impact on the performance of poorly performing students on more challenging quantitative courses. Our results suggest that the impact of clickers on student performance may depend on the type of student (academically weak, average or strong) and the type of course (average or difficult). This finding has particular implications for curriculum planners at the post-secondary level, although the findings may also have application at the secondary school level.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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