MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2514389814 · doi:10.15215/aupress/9781897425473.01

Accessible Elements: Teaching Science Online and at a Distance

2010· book· en· W2514389814 sur OpenAlexaff
Erna Dominey, Peter Enman, Kathy Killoh, Natalie Olsen, Michael Moore, Terry Anderson

Notice bibliographique

RevueAthabasca University Press eBooks · 2010
Typebook
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueOnline and Blended Learning
Établissements canadiensAthabasca University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDistance educationComputer scienceOnline teachingMathematics educationWorld Wide WebData sciencePsychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The American Journal of Distance Education X • accessible elements around the country on railway trains.Looking for a simpler and less costly solution, my assignment was related to his work on the concept of the home experiment kit.This would be a package of materials and equipment that could be loaned to the student, who would use it in conducting science experiments at home.It was one of many ideas that Wedemeyer had been discussing with friends in the United Kingdom who were in the process of setting up the Open University, where it became extremely successful as sophisticated and ingenious home experiment kits were developed on an industrial scale (see Chapter 10).Forty years after those early initiatives -and in spite of the example of the Open University, which has not only shown that science can be taught at a distance, but has become a world center of high quality science -the prejudice that science can only be taught faceto-face is still widespread, especially in the United States.Indeed, innovative course and program proposals frequently fail to get off the ground because of very ill-informed assertions by classroom teachers that distance teaching of science is not possible.It should be a matter of some surprise -now that we have Dietmar Kennepohl and Lawton Shaw's book before us -to realize how long it has taken for someone to produce a book to challenge this prejudice, indeed to begin to describe the problem and to document some of the ways in which it has been tackled.Further evidence of the slowness of the educational community to deal with the challenge -and opportunity -of distance teaching in the sciences is provided by the number of articles that have appeared in the quality research journals.In more than twenty years, the American Journal of Distance Education has received only one publishable research-based article having "science" in its title; this was an article on the subject of science teaching in high schools (Martin & Rainey, 1993).Added to this, there have been descriptive, i.e., non-research based reports, in the Journal's "Grassroots" section describing isolated experiences in science teacher education (Jaeger, 1995), and another about an attempt Foreword • XIII as lending themselves to a constructivist pedagogy.The big question, of providing laboratory experiences, is the subject of a full section, in my opinion one of the core questions in this book, and then a final section deals with some issues of the logistics and infrastructure of program delivery.This book will, I hope, be read by everyone with an interest in education.This is not only for science educators or distance educators alone.Certainly one hopes that teachers of science in the classroom -most of whom are likely to be called on in the future to teach at a distance at least in blended learning conditions -as well as those who already do teach at a distance, and also the administrators and policy makers who have to allocate and manage the resources that are available for science education will study this book carefully and glean from it some of the valuable ideas it provides for the expansion and improvement of distance education in the sciences.Surely our students deserve better programs, the out-of-school population needs more opportunity of continuing education in the sciences, and society deserves and needs a better return on its education and training investment in the sciences than it has enjoyed until now.If this book goes even a short way toward sensitizing these populations to the challenges of teaching science at a distance and also the enormous potential for society and the individual of upgrading our response to that challenge, it will indeed prove to be a most important work -besides being a thoroughly enjoyable read. ReferencesAbdel-Salam, T.M., Kauffmann, P.J., & Crossman, G.R. (2007).Are distance laboratories effective tools for technology education?The American Journal of Distance Education, 21(2), 77-92.Jaeger, M. (1995).Science teacher education at a distance.The American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 61-75.Martin, E.D., & Rainey, L. (1993).Student achievement and attitude in a satellite-delivered high school science course.

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)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
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 enseignants0,056
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,188

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,002
Communication savante0,0060,006
Science ouverte0,0010,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0560,010

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 Opus0,020
Tête enseignante GPT0,288
Écart entre enseignants0,268 · 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.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
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

Citations40
Publié2010
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAthabasca University Press eBooksMême sujetOnline and Blended LearningTravaux en français237 207