The Name of the Game: Utilizing Experiential Learning in the Classroom to Engage, Empower and Reflect on Student Learning and Assessment
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
In the modern post-secondary classroom, there is a push for more experiential and active learning activities for students. A variety of benefits such as engagement, improved learning and self regulated learning have ensued with these different types of learning. Studies regarding these benefits have mostly centered on experiences carefully orchestrated by instructors, rather than experiences that were created by students under the guidance of instructors. Herein is a study of the benefits and efficiency, of the latter type of activity, which requires students to generate chemical puzzles in a large post-secondary classroom. The authors determined that not only is a puzzle generation activity possible, but students’ reflections on instructor examples highlights the potential for learning and for a new form of assessment. Going forward, however, the study also shows more support and examples are required in future iterations of the puzzle framework, to help students create a meaningful experience.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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