MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910019977 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.13098

Examining the use of a Personalized Learning Management System (PLMS) to Increase Student Engaagement in High School Physics

2018· article· en· W2910019977 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Meera Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLearning Styles and Cognitive Differences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsStudent engagementLearning stylesDiversity (politics)Mathematics educationScience learningStyle (visual arts)Component (thermodynamics)Active learning (machine learning)Quality (philosophy)Computer scienceScience educationPsychologyArtificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Motivated by the drive to impact the quality and diversity of students applying to engineering schools, this study evaluates a component of a Personalized Digital Learning Management System (PLMS) that has been designed to increase student engagement in K-12 Physics. In particular, a non-traditional project based learning module, with roots in game-based learning, has been developed and executed in grade 8 science classrooms. Pre and post survey data that includes attitudinal markers, learning style profiles, gender, and assessments of knowledge gained, are analyzed and presented. Results suggest that students who are more interested in science, physics and engineering tend to have learning styles that require programming that is more active and less sequential than traditionally delivered. This is particularly the case for female students. The non-traditional game based project acted to provide these types of learning opportunities and post survey data showed a very high level of student engagement. Results obtained will be used to further refine the PLMS.

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)0.009
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicLearning Styles and Cognitive DifferencesFrench-language works237,207