MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220953031 · doi:10.5430/wjel.v12n2p249

The Impact of Flipgrid in Students’ Learning Experience at Higher Learning Institution

2022· article· en· W4220953031 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hafizah Mohamad Hsbollah

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of English Language · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOnline Learning and Analytics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarship of Teaching and LearningMathematics educationInstitutionComputer scienceActive learning (machine learning)Experiential learningScholarshipPsychologyTeaching methodPedagogyTeaching and learning centerSociologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Student-generated videos have been accepted as part of interactive learning activities in the classroom. The aim of this study is to provide insights into the impact of Flipgrid, which is an interactive social learning platform for student-generated videos, on students’ learning experience. The research design follows five principles of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL). This study focused on how students generate their own understanding of the concepts they learnt and shared through the Flipgrid application, using generative learning theory as its underlying foundation. A total number of 117 students who enrolled in the Accounting System Analysis and Design course in a university participated in this study. Data were collected using the students’ written reflections. The findings of this study revealed that the student-generated video through Flipgrid contributed to the positive students’ learning experience. In this regard, it boosted the confidence level, improved the understanding of the topic’s content, a fun learning activity, and others, such as improved students’ video editing skills. The outcomes offer insights into how Flipgrid can be used and beneficial for the learning activity.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.422
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of English LanguageSame topicOnline Learning and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207