TRÊS GERAÇÕES DE PEDAGOGIA DE EDUCAÇÃO A DISTÂNCIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este artigo define e examina três gerações de pedagogia de educação a distância. Ao contrário de classificações anteriores de educação a distância, baseadas na tecnologia utilizada, esta análise centra-se na pedagogia que define as experiências de aprendizagem encapsuladas no design da aprendizagem. As três gerações de pedagogia, cognitivo-behaviorista, socioconstrutivista e conectivista, são examinadas utilizando o conhecido modelo de comunidade de investigação (GARRISON; ANDERSON; ARCHER, 2000), com foco nas presenças cognitiva, social e de ensino. Embora essa tipologia de pedagogias possa também ser aplicada com proveito na educação presencial, a necessidade e a prática de abertura e de explicitação do conteúdo e do processo em educação a distância tornam o trabalho especialmente relevante para os designers, professores e desenvolvedores de educação a distância. O artigo conclui que a educação a distância de alta qualidade explora as três gerações em função do conteúdo de aprendizagem, do contexto e das expectativas de aprendizagem [1]. -----------------------------------------------[1] Tradução autorizada de: ANDERSON, Terry; DRON, Jon. Three generations of distance education pedagogy. IRRODL: International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, v. 12, n. 3, 2011. Special Issue: Connectivism: Design and Delivery of Social Networked Learning, p. 80-97.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".