Positive Impact of Multiple-Choice Question Authoring and Regular Quiz Participation on Student Learning
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We previously developed an online multiple-choice question authoring, learning, and self-assessment tool that we termed Quizzical. Here we report statistical analyses over two consecutive years of Quizzical use in a large sophomore-level introductory molecular biology course. Students were required to author two questions during the term and were also afforded opportunities to earn marks for quiz participation. We found that students whose final grade was "A," "B," or "C" exhibited similar patterns of Quizzical engagement. The degree to which students participated was positively associated with performance on formal exams, even if prior academic performance was considered as a covariable. During both terms investigated, students whose Quizzical engagement increased from one exam to the next earned statistically significant higher scores on the subsequent exam, and students who attempted Quizzical questions from earlier in the term scored higher, on average, on the cumulative portion of the final exam. We conclude that the structure and value of the assignment, and the utility of Quizzical as a discipline-independent active-learning and self-assessment tool, enabled students to better master course topics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it