MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885812060 · doi:10.1109/civemsa.2018.8439968

Skill Assessment in Virtual Learning Environments

2018· article· en· W2885812060 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRubricComputer scienceExperiential learningProcess (computing)Virtual learning environmentMainstreamMultimediaKnowledge managementHuman–computer interactionMathematics educationPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) to reach their potential as a mainstream educational technology through employing experiential activities, they need assessment rubrics that are easy to execute and measure. This paper presents a study that investigates the use of automatically collected metrics in a 3D VLE along with metrics related to the learning process derived from established assessment criteria for higher order skills such as critical thinking, communication, and collaboration. Our study results provide supporting evidence that learning process metrics collected from a 3D VLE can be used for assessing higher order skills to compliments instructor's understanding of student's skills levels and to provide the necessary support during the learning process.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.362
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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.386 · 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

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsFrench-language works237,207