MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997161743 · doi:10.4018/ijgbl.2020010101

Gamification of Formative Feedback in Language Arts and Mathematics Classrooms

2019· article· en· W2997161743 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

VenueInternational Journal of Game-Based Learning · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational Games and Gamification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormative assessmentNoticePopularityGame based learningMathematics educationComputer scienceExperiential learningGame designGame mechanicsPsychologyMultimedia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of computer games in education has been increasing in popularity during the past decade. Game-based learning environments are designed to teach specific knowledge content and skill-based learning outcomes using game elements. One main reason for using game-based learning environments is to increase student motivation and engagement while teaching learning outcomes. Many of the game-based learning environments are designed so that students will reach maximum flow, which is defined as students being so completely immersed in that game that they do not notice that they are learning. These learning environments have been shown to improve many behaviour and cognitive learning outcomes. While game-based learning has many benefits, some educational researchers have indicated that it is often very costly to develop a complex game-based assessment to teach a few learning outcomes. Hence, in some cases it is more beneficial to approach the use of computer games in education using gamification.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score0.675

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.312 · 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