Powerful learning tool or ‘cool factor’? Instructors’ perceptions of using film and video within teaching and 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
This study builds upon previous research that explores the use of film and video in a pedagogical context by explicitly asking instructors about their attitudes towards and motivations for employing such texts in their teaching, as well as the challenges they face in the process. Data were gathered through an anonymous, online survey of instructors across disciplines at seven Ontario universities. Commonalities were found amongst participants in the purposes cited for using film and video as well as in the challenges that accompany use of this pedagogical tool. For example, instructors in four of our six Faculty groupings commonly noted drawing on film and video to engage student attention, and the two most frequently selected challenges in five of our six Faculty groupings were ‘technical difficulties screening films’ and ‘problems finding appropriate materials’. We consider the implications of these findings for teaching and learning and suggest areas for future research.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.014 |
| 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