ONLINE INTERACTION TOOLS: IMPACTS ON STUDENTS’ PARTICIPATION 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
Shyness, low self-esteem, and fear of peer/instructor’s judgment are among the common factors hindering students’ participation (e.g., asking/answering questions) in classrooms. In this regard, anonymous response systems such as iClickers have been used to improve students’ engagement in classroom activities. Although iClickers can enhance students’ participation, they promote one-way interactions only (i.e., students answering questions). Online interaction platforms are alternatives to traditional clickers that provide more flexibility for students and allow them to answer/ask questions in real-time. In this study, we investigated the use of an online tool that allows for real-time presentation of the lecture’s slides integrated with an audience interaction platform for anonymous classroom participation. The findings of our study provide evidence regarding the positive impacts of using this tool (e.g., improved classroom participation through asking questions and voting in polls) in an undergraduate Mechanical Engineering Design course. We discuss the potential improvements that can be made to the implementation of this approach in future courses to enhance students engagement when using this interactive tool.
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 | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| 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