PLATAFORMA WORDWALL: ESTRATEGIA METODOLOGICA COMO FERRAMENTA DINAMICA NO PROCESSO AVALIATIVOEM UMA ESCOLA MUNICIPAL DE DUQUE BACELAR – MA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A proposta defende a necessidade da implantação de um método avaliativo inovador e dinâmico, com a intensão de tornar o momento avaliativo mais atrativo e prazeroso, de forma a motivar o aluno durante a avaliação.Teve como objetivo central a investigação da inserção da plataforma wordwall como ferramenta avaliativa, a fim de motivar o aluno e tornar o momento avaliativo prazeroso.A plataforma wordwall permite a criação de atividades em forma de jogos digitais.Para aplicação da proposta, foi utilizada à pesquisa-ação e a abordagem quantiqualitativa.A pesquisa ocorreu com os alunos do 6° da escola municipal São Francisco, localizada no município de Duque Bacelar -MA.Por meio dos resultados obtidos com a aplicação da proposta concluiu-se que implantação da plataforma wordwall como ferramenta avaliativa por meio de jogos digitais tende a tornar o momento avaliativo mais dinâmico e prazeroso, além de instigar o interesse dos alunos e motiva-los durante o processo de aprendizagem.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.013 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".