Hackathon as an Effective Learning and Assessment Tool: An Analysis of Student Proficiency against Bloom's Taxonomy
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 recent years, several learning strategies have been adopted to boost students’ learning and performance. Hackathon as a collaborative learning method, gives students the opportunity to investigate the practical usage of concepts by solving a real-world project in a limited time. Many researchers have investigated the effect of hackathons on students’ engagement, team work and learning motivation. In this paper, we integrate a hackathon component in a software development and architecture course curriculum to evaluate the effect of working on a real-world web development project in a hackathon setting on deepening the theoretical concepts learnt in lectures. The data is collected through two surveys which were accessible to students before and after the hackathon and students code commits on GitHub. By comparing the students’ code quality as well as their answers to survey questions before and after the hackathon against the Bloom’s taxonomy, we understand their knowledge state in each step and possible improvements in each one of the areas. The research findings show the importance of hackathon participation on students’ performance and state of knowledge.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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