AIAS 1: no AI, please Initial post Thu 23:59 UK · two replies Sun 23:59 UK About 250 words
Purpose: MLO2, MLO4 · feeds the engagement section of P2 · Salmon stage 3 (information exchange) · netiquette applies, so anonymise everything.
Claim: our VLE dashboard says engagement is up 30% because log-ins rose. Evidence: log-in counts only. Kind: behavioural, and barely, since logging in isn't doing. Test: compare log-ins with completion of the weekly case task, and add a two-question exit poll on how hard learners had to think.
Amara, a sharp distinction between logging in and doing. What would convince you that the case task captures cognitive engagement and not just compliance?
Claim: a vendor says its quiz app "boosts engagement and attainment". Evidence: one case study from the vendor, with no comparison group. Kind: emotional (enjoyment) is all the quotes show. Test: run the app with one class and paper quizzes with the other for three weeks, then compare scores on the same end-of-unit questions.
Li, would the two classes be comparable? Our sets differ a lot. Could you swap the method halfway (one class each way first) to balance it out?
Claim: a staff-meeting slide says recorded lectures are "well used, so students are engaged". Evidence: view counts. Kind: behavioural. Test: look at drop-off points in the analytics, and ask five students to talk aloud through one recording.
Three patterns this week: (1) most workplace claims measure behavioural engagement (log-ins, views) and call it learning; (2) vendor evidence rarely has a comparison; (3) your best tests combine a behaviour measure with learners' own voice. Take one of these into your P2 draft. Next week: ethical learner feedback.