Investigating the Effects of Group Response Systems on Student Satisfaction, Learning, and Engagement in Accounting Education
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 examine group response systems (GRS) as an educational tool. We use an experimental approach and student survey data to assess vendors' claims that GRS improve student engagement and feedback, and thus improve learning. A key part of our design involves controlling for effects of moving to a more interactive pedagogy that have been found to affect learning. For a management accounting course, we find only limited GRS learning effects, as proxied by exam performance. Contrary to our expectations, we find a decline in engagement, as proxied by student oral participation, when GRS are used. We also find little evidence that GRS lead to greater student satisfaction with the course. We do find support for student satisfaction with GRS, from which we infer that implementation problems are not driving our results. In summary, we find little support for vendor claims, when controlling for changes in pedagogy.
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 | 0.028 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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