MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399918262 · doi:10.1080/00220671.2024.2362164

Reported and observed engagement in handwriting and keyboarding activities in elementary school: Are students as engaged as they say they are?

2024· article· en· W4399918262 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Educational Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWriting and Handwriting Education
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHandwritingPsychologyChecklistLikert scaleObservational studyStudent engagementScale (ratio)Mathematics educationDevelopmental psychologyCognitive psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Little is known about students’ engagement in school writing tasks and the methods that should be used by the researchers to assess this engagement. This exploratory study examines the relationship between the engagement reported by elementary school students (N = 136) in a handwriting and keyboarding activity (Likert scale questionnaire) and their actual behaviors in such situations. An observational checklist was created to capture engagement behaviors in these writing contexts. Correlational analyses showed that, overall, self-reported engagement scores were positively correlated with the frequency of the behaviors observed in both contexts. The discussion focuses on the relevance of observational checklists and questionnaires for capturing students’ engagement in writing tasks, and opens to the conceptual links between engagement and motivation.

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)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.210
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.277 · 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