Community platform management mechanisms to support integrated Learning Design
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This PhD Thesis contributes to the domain of Educational Technologies, and more specifically to the Learning Design (LD) research field, which focuses on supporting teachers in the creation of effective computer-supported learning activities considering the needs of their educational contexts. Research in LD has provided a myriad of tools and methods. Yet, existing tools lack collaboration support for communities of teachers engaged in learning (co-)design. Moreover, scope of tools is varied in terms of representations used, pedagogical approaches supported, and design phases targeted (from conceptualization to authoring and implementation). This diversity of tools contrasts with lack of articulation of their synergies to offer meaningful, manageable and integrated LD ecosystems for teachers and communities of teachers. This Thesis is framed in this problem area. Its guiding research question is: How can community platform management mechanisms support teachers in integrated learning design ecosystems? This question is addressed by more specific investigation towards addressing four specific research objectives. The first objective is explorative, focused on understanding needs for management mechanisms in LD community platforms. The resulting contribution includes participation in building and evaluating LD community platforms (LdShake, Learning design Sharing and co-edition, and ILDE, Integrated Learning Design Environment) in the context of Spanish and European projects, and the identification of needs tackled in the following three research objectives. The second objective deals with enabling flexible management of learning (co-)design processes that involve use of several LD tools. The associated contribution is a model and implementation for LD Workflows, which shape orchestrated uses of selected LD tools that can be applied to LD Projects. The third objective focuses on supporting management of multiple learning design versions in scenarios of reuse and co-design. The contribution is a model and visualization strategy based on a family tree metaphor. The fourth objective concerns the need for interoperability between co-(design) tools and platforms, and in particular focuses on design patterns as structured LD representations of special interest because they collect repeatable good teaching practices. The contribution is a pattern ontology for computationally representing a pattern language (working case of design patterns in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning) and a derived model together with an architecture for interoperable management of patterns across LD tooling. Contributions have been implemented in LdShake and ILDE community platforms, showing feasibility, enabling proofof-concept in significant scenarios and user studies involving teachers.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,016 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,010 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,012 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,022 | 0,005 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».