MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910283173 · doi:10.53841/bpsptr.2018.24.2.64

Using the Immediate Feedback Assessment Technique (IFAT) for non-assessments: Student perceptions and performance

2018· article· en· W2910283173 on OpenAlexaff
Lynne N. Kennette, Dawn McGuckin

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology Teaching Review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicStudent Assessment and Feedback
Canadian institutionsDurham College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyLotteryClass (philosophy)Mathematics educationPerceptionReading (process)Medical educationComputer scienceStatisticsMathematicsMedicineLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines an experiment conducted at a 2-year college with non-majors. The Immediate Feedback Assessment Technique (IFAT) is a cross between a lottery scratch ticket and a scantron form which was designed to replace scantrons (EpsteinEducation.com). Using the IFAT in an unconventional way (reviewing class material), we expected to find significant differences in students’ final grades with the IFAT group out-performing the control group (who reviewed class material by re-reading their notes). Our hypothesis was confirmed. Additionally, formal student feedback on the use of this weekly activity was overwhelmingly positive, suggesting the activity is seen by students as a worthwhile undertaking.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.335
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.519
Teacher spread0.435 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychology Teaching ReviewSame topicStudent Assessment and FeedbackFrench-language works237,207