Symposium 1: Networking educational administrators through e-Teaching
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This paper is about e-teaching in the context of a university graduate program and how the program metamorphosed from being entirely campus based to entirely online, and from declining enrolments to increasing enrolments. It is about the faculty and lecturers who conducted a critical analysis of their particular situation, examined their options, researched other program delivery options and finally settled on a solution that has proven successful. Because of this labour-intensive process, they discovered that the networking processes undertaken by them to complete their mandate enabled them to become better networking mentors as e-teachers. This is their story and it sheds a critical light on various delivery models currently deployed by universities worldwide. Most importantly, it demonstrates that a good deal of reflection and agreement on what good teaching is and how it can be achieved has to be conducted prior to delivery model adoption. It also raises the question as to the wisdom of across-the-board institutionally decided program delivery choices. Such choices not only affect e-learners down the road but also directly affect faculty’s motivation and ability, as a community of practice, to carry out their teaching responsibilities efficiently and sustainably. Data was gleaned from an ongoing study, mostly from a series of semi-structured interviews with administrators and faculty, including lecturers, who participated, over the course of a two-year period, in transferring this program from on-campus to online. Six semi-structured interviews, each lasting between 60 and 90 minutes, were conducted. Access to work documents, ongoing email exchanges and personal conversations completed the data set. The interview guide used was developed to highlight respondent experience over the course of the two-year program migration online, focusing on the move from on-campus teaching to e-teaching, course delivery model selection, and an open questions for respondents to add related comments. Complete data analysis and interpretation is proceeding as this proposal is being sent to conference organisers. Results show a high degree of unanimity in the decision to adopt BOLD as program delivery mechanism. Respondents describe how it gave them back what they most liked in their work: direct and continuous, regular contact with their students, free-flowing discussions on concepts, principles and their applications, access to students who would normally not enrol in their courses and a workload that was more manageable than other delivery systems they had known.
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.
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 | 0,001 |
| 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 | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 découle