Enhancing teaching–learning process and through CAI (Computer-assisted instruction)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional teaching and learning paradigms have been shaken by the impact of the integration of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). Computer programmes are interactive and can illustrate a concept through attractive animation, sound and demonstration. They allow students to progress at their own pace and work individually or solve problems in a group. “Computer-assisted instruction” (CAI) refers to instruction or remediation presented on a computer. Many educational computer programmes are available online and from computer stores and textbook companies. They enhance teacher instruction in several ways. A self-learning technique, usually offline/online, involving interaction of the student with programmed instructional materials. Computer-assisted instruction (CAI) is an interactive instructional technique whereby a computer is used to present the instructional material and monitor the learning that takes place. CAI uses a combination of text, graphics, sound and video in enhancing the learning process. The computer has many purposes in the classroom and it can be utilised to help a student in all areas of the curriculum. Reading computer programmes demonstrate concepts, instruct and remediate student errors and misunderstandings from pre-school through college. In this article researchers try to define and show usage and capabilities of CAI in learning and teaching process with reference to the Canadian context.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".