Notice bibliographique
Résumé
After a critical review of the impact of change on people’s lives, we report on an empirical study highlighting three major aspects of academic life that the pandemic affected, providing supporting examples. The method used is first textual analysis for the critical review based on what the literature identifies as difficulties brought about by change (CBIA, 2022; Senge, 1990). The empirical study is of a qualitative nature (Creswell, & Poth, 2018) based on the analysis of observations in a personal journal, and aims at uncovering academic concerns during the pandemic. The findings will be valuable to academics to reshape their ‘new normal’. Results include for the theoretical part of the literature review the fact that change impacts people and one cannot come back to prior positioning. Several findings from the analysis of the observational notes are centered around three main areas. The first issue was due to the short time span for new implementations and hence no time for foresight. This encompasses consequences of trial and error, more administrative control, and uncertainty of outcomes with contradictory discourses been held. Added to that there was a human cost that far exceeded what would normally be the case. For instance academic colleagues quitting or retiring early, unevenness in support provided, isolation in some cases compared to overabundance of support in others, perhaps even favoritism. The third major observation pointed to consequences on the instructional context. In this case, a number of positive outcomes were noted. More effort was placed on student engagement and learning, and it was all made visible. More activities were devised based on gaming strategies, and serious work was made more motivating. A better feel for knowledge integration was possible due to on-line learning for students who put some effort into it. Some observations however led to drawing conflicting conclusions. Finally, we discuss new future pathways. For instance, it is important to develop self-regulation in students and resilience for all concerned. There also appears to be a need to provide active support to everyone on an on-going basis as we move past the crisis.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».