Teachers and pupils identified weaknesses in the LRS: no showing of working, mis-programmed answers, and small handsets¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2020: tool and model accuracy changes quickly

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Pupils occasionally received negative feedback when their answer was wholly or partially correct due to incorrectly programmed or over-specified answers. → Wiggins et al. 2017

Evidence¶

Wiggins et al. 2017¶

Meg Wiggins, Mary Sawtell and Dr John Jerrim. (2017). Learner Response System: Evaluation report and executive summary. Education Endowment Foundation. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED581136

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Process evaluation findings from case study interviews, focus groups, and observations. The report also notes criticism that "the small size of the handset made it difficult to type properly". These usability concerns qualify the generally positive perceptions.

"Some teachers and pupils felt that the inability of the system to let children 'show their working' was a weakness. There was also a concern that incorrectly programmed or over-specified answers meant that pupils occasionally received negative feedback when in fact their answer was wholly or partially correct."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 81.54% of incorrectly analysed programs were incorrect programs analysed as correct — related
• Grading answers required weighted partial credit because responses varied in degrees of rightness — related
• LLM-based scoring produced fewer false negatives than Deep Tutor on a balanced test set, which the authors expect would spare students the frustration of correct explanations judged incorrect — related
• Teachers and pupils were generally positive about the LRS, valuing instant feedback and self-paced work — related