Student and Instructor Perceptions of a First Year in Active Learning Classrooms
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 article presents evaluation of an active learning classroom (ALC) initiative at the University of Ottawa. Preliminary results indicate three broad trends to inform future practice and classroom design: 1) Despite advances in educational technology, there remains a strong appetite for low-tech, interactive learning opportunities. 2) Instructors feel that consistent institutional support is necessary to foster innovation in the classroom, particularly for course redesign. 3) a collaborative strategy, bringing together multiple institutional stakeholders, is necessary to ensure a whole-of-university approach to optimal use of the ALCs. This article briefly reviews ALC research, outlines the methodology of the program-evaluation protocol, discusses the three central findings, and concludes with potential directions in ALC research. Nous examinons ici une initiative, menée à l’Université d’Ottawa, de classe d’apprentissage actif (CAA). Les résultats préliminaires permettent de dégager trois tendances qui permettront d’orienter les pratiques et la configuration de la classe : 1) malgré les avancées dans les technologies éducatives, l’intérêt pour les méthodes simples et pour l’apprentissage interactif ne se dément pas; 2) Les enseignants croient que l’innovation en classe, et tout particulièrement la refonte des cours, sont tributaires d’un soutien institutionnel constant; 3) pour utiliser toutes les ressources de l’université et ainsi faire un usage optimal des CAA, il doit y avoir une stratégie de collaboration regroupant différents intervenants de l’établissement. Dans notre article, après avoir survolé la recherche au sujet des CAA et défini la méthodologie du protocole d’évaluation de programme, nous présentons les trois résultats principaux et nous proposons, en guise de conclusion, trois avenues possibles pour la recherche sur les CAA.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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