MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399723112 · doi:10.32920/26052583

Educational AR Board Game: Teach History and Spread Awareness About an Immoral Social Practice Through the Medium of an Augmented Reality Board Game

2024· preprint· en· W4399723112 on OpenAlexaff
Zainab Jabla

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAugmented Reality Applications
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAugmented realityOn boardPsychologySociologyBusinessComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Purpose. This thesis investigates the potential of a custom-built hybrid educational board game as a tool to teach history and spread awareness on a social tradition called Sati, where a widow burns on the funeral pyre with her dead husband. Furthermore, it investigates if a board game is an effective tool to teach an academic subject such as History in a school setting. </p> <p>Method. Participant behaviour and emotional connection regarding the social tradition as well as the amount of historical knowledge gained were observed during a pilot study of SUTTEE. A total of 12 students participated in the pilot study: 6 Indian students who were aware of Sati, and 6 non-Indian students who were unaware of the tradition. </p> <p>Results. Student participation and understanding of historical context improved after playing the game twice. Those unaware of the tradition accepted that they had learned a lot about it after playing the game, and the group that was aware of such a tradition acknowledged that the game provided a deep understanding of the social tradition and the history of India. </p> <p>Conclusion. Participant feedback and observational analysis indicate that a group of people playing an educational game can result in gaining extra knowledge than an individual playing and learning by himself. Furthermore, time constrained decision-making in a game environment helps to maintain student engagement, motivation to play and learn facts for the purpose of winning game. However, an educational game cannot replace books, but it can be used as a pedagogical approach to enhance learning and teaching methods.</p>

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.856
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.003
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.309 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAugmented Reality ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207