MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1814578439 · doi:10.1002/047148296x.tie190

Web‐Based Training

2004· other· en· W1814578439 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Patrick J. Fahy

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Internet Encyclopedia · 2004
Typeother
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueHigher Education Learning Practices
Établissements canadiensAthabasca University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésTrainerQuality (philosophy)Medical educationWeb applicationThe InternetComputer sciencePsychologyKnowledge managementMultimediaMedicineWorld Wide Web

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Current Web‐based training (WBT) is based upon systematic research and experience with strategies for improving learning and instruction, beginning in the early part of the 20th century and continuing to the present. Use of the World Wide Web for delivery may improve access to training, but the effectiveness of the resulting training and the usefulness of the outcomes is chiefly dependent upon the quality of the instructional design and the completeness of the support package provided. Factors that impact WBT quality, and which must be addressed in design and implementation processes, include assessment and accommodation of trainees' previous learning experiences, training expectations, and overall readiness for new training; availability and familiarity to trainees and trainers of appropriate delivery technologies; presence of technical support; opportunities for interaction with the trainer and other trainees; the preparation and practices of trainers; corporate support and recognition; trainees' capacities and expectations for independent and self‐directed learning; and the presence of relevant, quality online training materials. WBT creates changes and may thus produce stresses in the training environment, as well as efficiencies. Reduction in travel and subsistence requirements means cost savings, but may also be seen by trainees as depriving them of opportunities to meet with each other face‐to‐face; self‐pacing means trainees may proceed independently and at their own rate, but also that group support may be reduced (unless a cohort model is adopted); use of the Internet for delivery of training materials may foster trainee independence, but may also result in confusion for some trainees used to print materials and a paced, group delivery model; trainers no longer have to lecture as materials (always high quality, and often multimedia‐based) are prepared in advance, but some may resent the loss of their role at center‐stage; trainees are more responsible for their own learning, which may reflect the autonomy of adult responsibility common in the other areas of their lives, but this may be different from the expectations of some for how training should be conducted. To achieve the efficiencies and advantages well‐designed and ‐managed WBT may offer, adopting organizations must make adjustments. Managers may need to show concrete support for online training by permitting trainees to use corporate resources during company time, to assure access to adequate bandwidth. Trainers may need to master new skills and be willing to adopt new roles less concerned with information dissemination and more involved with meeting individual trainees' expressed needs. Trainees themselves may also need new skills, and may need to exercise more independence and self‐direction in their learning. As technologies become more available to support WBT, and as more models of successful WBT are available, the commitment to this delivery model is predicted to continue to grow. The previous corporate experience of the “productivity paradox” in relation to computers, in which some succeeded in improving productivity while others did not—and some even experienced productivity losses—will need to be avoided, especially in relation to promising innovations such as reusable learning objects . Similarly, arrival of the noncommercial “new Internets” in Canada and the United States constitute a fresh start, an opportunity to demonstrate the value of these resources for academic and research purposes. Choices of the right technologies, effective use of these choices, attention to security and privacy concerns, adequate training and support of users at all levels, assurance of timely and convenient technology access, and attention to interpersonal needs of participants, if achieved, will result in the expansion and continued success of WBT.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,447
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,789

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0020,002
Science ouverte0,0010,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,4470,216

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,036
Tête enseignante GPT0,349
Écart entre enseignants0,313 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2004
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Internet EncyclopediaMême sujetHigher Education Learning PracticesTravaux en français237 207