MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390821987 · doi:10.31219/osf.io/9y2tb

Skip the reading assignment: Effective and efficient learning with only practice and feedback

2024· preprint· en· W4390821987 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicVisual and Cognitive Learning Processes
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsReading (process)Computer sciencePsychologyMultimediaMathematics educationLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A large body of existing research indicates that practice after an initial reading improves learning outcomes and is more beneficial than rereading. But can practice with feedback be effective even without upfront reading? Across three laboratory studies (n = 1,554), participants learned the same amount from practice with feedback regardless of whether they did the introductory reading or not, and they saved 60% of time when skipping the reading. These results suggest that if students have the opportunity to practice and receive feedback on their performance, additional passive instruction like textbook reading may be redundant and inefficient. Students might be better off focusing on practice and feedback for robust and efficient learning.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.783
Threshold uncertainty score0.954

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesFrench-language works237,207