MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2744978733 · doi:10.18260/1-2--18518

The Effectiveness of “Pencasts” as an Instructional Medium

2020· article· en· W2744978733 on OpenAlexaff
James Herold, Thomas F. Stahovich, Hanlung Lin, Robert C. Calfee

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducation and Learning Interventions
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSession (web analytics)Presentation (obstetrics)Computer scienceMultimediaNarrativeDigital videoMathematics educationPsychologyWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Effectiveness of “Pencasts” as an Instructional MediumA pencast is a type of video presentation in which recorded digital ink and audio are replayed insynchronization. To create a pencast, a special digital “Smartpen” is used to record handwrittencontent with voice narration. For example, an instructor can use a Smartpen to write the solutionto a sample problem while explaining each step. When a student views the resulting pencast, thepen strokes and audio are displayed like a movie, with the explanation synchronized to therendering of the strokes.“Pencasts” are becoming a popular instructional tool, but their educational effectiveness has notbeen formally studied. Thus, we present a research study aimed at comparing the educationaleffectiveness of pencasts to that of traditional instructional media, specifically, printeddocuments. The study involved two sessions and two treatments within each session. Eachsession included a pretest problem, a tutorial, and a posttest problem. In one treatment thetutorial was provided as a pencast, while in the other the tutorial was a traditional printeddocument with content identical to that of the pencast. Within each treatment group, theproblems used for pretest and posttest were alternated to control for order effects. Likewise, thestudents who received the pencast in the first session were given the traditional document in thesecond, and vice versa. The study included about 65 participants and was conducted in thecontext of a ten-week undergraduate Statics course. The problems in the first session concernedwedge friction, while those in the second concerned belt friction. Students completed the pre-and posttests using digital pens, enabling us to record and examine the solution process. We willreport performance gains from pre- to posttest for the different treatment conditions, examiningerror patterns and solution time. We will also report results of a survey of students’ preferencesfor pencasts vs. traditional printed instructional materials.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEducation and Learning InterventionsFrench-language works237,207