MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994446456 · doi:10.47678/cjhe.v35i4.184475

The Immediate Feedback Assessment Technique: A Learner-centered Multiple-choice Response Form

2013· article· en· W2994446456 on OpenAlexaffvenue
David DiBattista

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Higher Education · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicStudent Assessment and Feedback
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrading (engineering)Multiple choiceComputer scienceSuiteMathematics educationPsychologyMathematicsPolitical scienceStatisticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Immediate Feedback Assessment Technique (IFAT) is a new multiple-choice response form that has advantages over more commonly used response techniques. The IFAT, which is commercially available at reasonable cost and can be used conveniently with large classes, has an answer-until-correct format that provides students with immediate, corrective, item-by-item feedback. Advantages of this learner-centered response form are that it: (a) actively promotes learning; (b) allows students’ partial knowledge to be rewarded with partial credit; (c) is strongly preferred by students over other response techniques; and (d) lets instructors more easily maintain the security of multiple choice (MC) items so that they can be reused from one semester to the next. The IFAT’s major shortcoming is that grading must be done manually because it does not yet have a compatible optical scanning device. Helpful suggestions are presented for instructors who may be considering using the IFAT for the first time. RÉSUMÉ La Technique D’Évaluation Immédiat (Immediate Feedback Assessment Technique ou IFAT) est un nouveau formulaire pour examens à choix multiple qui a plusieurs avantages. Le IFAT, disponible à un prix raisonable et convenable pour les cours suivis par de nombreux étudiants, est constitué d’un format dans lequel les édudiants selectionnent alternative-par- alternative parmi les choix disponibles jusqu’à ce que la réponse correcte soit indiquée. En suite, la correction est automatique et informe la réponse correcte immédiatement. Le IFAT a plusieurs avantages: (a) il favorise l’apprentissage; (b) les étudiants peuvent obtenir des points partiels avec connaissances partiels; (c) les étudiants préferent ce formulaire à comparer à autres formats à choix multiple; et (d) les instructeurs peuvent maintenir plus facilement leurs questions et alternatives en sécurité et les réutiliser au cours des prochaines sessions. Le défaut principal du IFAT est que la notation est manuele car il n’y a pas encore de lecteur optique compatible avec ce formulaire. Des suggestions utiles sont ici données pour les instructeurs qui envisagent d’utiliser cette technique pour la première fois.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.326 · 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

Citations23
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Higher EducationSame topicStudent Assessment and FeedbackFrench-language works237,207