MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392681778 · doi:10.22318/icls2023.632371

Harnessing Student-Generated Questions as a Learning Strategy

2023· article· en· W4392681778 on OpenAlex
Mrinalini Sharma, Yutian Ma, Faria Sana

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

VenueProceedings. · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovative Teaching Methods
Canadian institutionsAthabasca UniversityMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsReading (process)Computer scienceRecallTest (biology)Mathematics educationMultimediaArtificial intelligencePsychologyCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of student-generated questions (SGQ) is a relatively novel educational strategy that can result in learning gains across diverse student populations and educational settings.This paper examines the effectiveness of three conditions (generation, retrieval, and re-reading) against two categories of question (factual and applied) through a between-subjects study design.After completing one of the three learning conditions: student-generated questions (generation or SGQ) with simultaneous access to content, practiced free recall of the learnt content (retrieval), and re-reading of the study material (re-reading), content learning was evaluated through a final test.Results demonstrate the learning potential of generation and hint at an association between question type and condition, suggesting that SGQ is an effective strategy to boost student learning, with potentially stronger results in specific contexts.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.668
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.354 · 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