发表机构
Indian Institute of Technology Ropar（鲁尔基印度理工学院（罗巴尔印度理工学院））
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
本研究通过分析47场实时课堂的604个投票问题，结合讲座转录上下文，揭示投票功能需情境解读，提问以低阶认知为主，且学生自评正确性与实际表现存在显著差距。
AI 中文摘要
实时课堂投票现已司空见惯，但其产生的数据通常被狭隘地解读为正确率分数或人数统计。此类解读几乎无法说明投票在讲座中的作用或其对参与度的影响。这对于诸如真/假等短回答格式尤为重要，因为同一问题格式既可用于测试回忆、检查理解，也可用于将学生的注意力引向一个故意误导性的陈述。本研究探讨以下问题：能否通过将投票与其讲座转录文本对照阅读来确定投票的答案和教学功能；语料库中包含哪些布鲁姆分类法的认知水平和教学功能簇；以及学生参与度与正确回答之间的关系。我们分析了一个包含47场实时课堂、跨越39天的自然语料库，其中包含604个投票问题和来自2,807名学习者的340,668条回答，大多数项目为真/假题，并与时间对齐的讲座转录文本和出勤记录进行对照阅读。将每个投票置于上下文中阅读被证明至关重要：89%的投票的答案可在讲座中找到，且一种反复出现的注意力检查机制仅能通过上下文才能显现。提问绝大多数属于低阶认知水平，并归为七种教学功能，且投票的回答遵循其功能而非其措辞。参与度广泛但集中，班级多数在88.5%的情况下回答正确，尽管一小部分高共识但错误的回答无法仅通过一致性检测发现。一项针对579名学生的独立调查在投票内容和参与情况上达成一致，但揭示了感知与现实之间的差距：学生无法判断自己的正确性，且他们认为最难的投票并非他们回答最差的那些。
英文摘要
Real-time classroom polling is now routine, yet the data it produces is usually read narrowly, as a correctness score or a headcount. Such readings say little about what a poll is doing within a lecture or how it shapes engagement. This is particularly relevant for short-response formats such as True/False, where the same question format can be used to test recall, check comprehension, or direct students' attention to a deliberately misleading statement. This study asks whether a poll's answer and instructional function can be determined by reading it against its lecture transcript, what cognitive levels of Bloom's taxonomy and instructional-function clusters the corpus contains, and how student engagement relates to answering correctly. We analyse a naturalistic corpus of 47 live sessions over 39 days, comprising 604 poll questions and 340,668 responses from 2,807 learners, most items True/False, read against time-aligned lecture transcripts and attendance. Reading each poll in context proves essential: the answer to 89% of polls is locatable in the lecture, and a recurring attention-checking device is visible only through context. Questioning is overwhelmingly lower-order and falls into seven instructional functions, and a poll's response follows its function rather than its wording. Engagement is broad but concentrated, and the class majority answers correctly 88.5% of the time, though a small set of high-consensus yet incorrect answers cannot be detected by agreement alone. An independent survey of 579 students agrees on what the polls are and on their participation, but reveals a gap between perception and reality: students cannot judge their own correctness, and the polls they find hardest are not those they answer worst.
Comments16 pages, 5 figures, One version is accepted at T4E 2026
