Symposium 3: Learning Design Family Tree to Back Reuse and Cooperation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The types of artefacts or solutions used towards the creation learning designs (Learning design Solutions, LdS) are diverse (patterns, course maps, activities, etc.) and have varied or multiple lives. Sometimes designs are created by an individual teacher for a single use with their students. But often, they are reused the following years or by other teachers with minor adaptations. Other times, designs are co-outlined by networks of teacher and later refined by each teacher for their particular group of students, or they are co-designed involving students. These scenarios can imply the creation of multiple replicas of the same design, which in turn may be duplicated and refined as new LdS. In this paper we state that supporting the management and visualization of interrelated LdS can back scenarios of cooperation and reuse in the context of design communities. In particular, we propose an LdS branching model visualized following a family-tree metaphor. We define a "learning designs’ family" as a collection of learning designs which weren't started from scratch but by replicating (or duplicating) a particular existing learning design. The model, and its visualization, has been implemented as a new feature in the LdShake teacher-community platform, as part of the Metis Integrated Learning Design Environment (ILDE). The development of the feature consists of two main modules: one devoted to the management of the family-related LdS and another focused on their visualization. On the one hand, the management module is in charge of storing LdS replicas’ data, managing their interrelations, and retrieving a learning design family corresponding to a given LdS. On the other hand, the visualization module displays a learning design family as square-shaped icons representing LdSs, and its family-relations using arrows. This first implementation of both the model and its visualization has enabled the collection of the first feedback from learning technology experts. The evaluation was carried out online. 11 experts responded to our invitation to try the feature completing a set of tasks and an on-line questionnaire. Their opinions indicate that the feature is interesting and could significantly address relevant learning design and co-design situations. They used the feature satisfactorily but also pointed out several suggestions to improve its usability and enhance its potential utility. The suggestions are being considered in a second iteration of the model and its implementation, which will be used by teachers in the Metis workshops.
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 | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,024 | 0,007 |
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 ».