MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1526935103 · doi:10.21432/t2ks3b

An inquiry into educational technologists’ conceptions of their philosophies of teaching and technology / Enquête sur les conceptions philosophiques de l'enseignement et de la technologie élaborées par les technologues de l’éducation

2013· article· en· W1526935103 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Learning and Technology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Media and Philosophy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyHumanitiesPedagogyPhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been suggested that when we know our philosophy of teaching and technology we then have the ability to articulate not only what we are doing as educational technologists, but what we want to achieve with the technologies, and why. And while most educational technologists would agree that knowing our philosophical orientations is important, do educational technologists actually know, or can they accurately identify, their teaching and technology philosophical orientations? We sought to answer these questions by assessing the consistency between what educational technologists say in collegial deliberations and how they self-identify their philosophical orientations. The results of this exploratory study provide us with insights on how educational technologists construe their philosophical orientations of teaching and technology. Philosophies of teaching and technology are defined in this study as a conceptual framing that embodies certain values, attitudes and ideologies from which we view the multi-contextual facets of educational practice. Il a été suggéré que, lorsque nous avons conscience de notre philosophie de l'enseignement et de la technologie, nous sommes mieux en mesure d’exprimer non seulement ce que nous faisons en tant que technologues de l'éducation, mais aussi ce que nous cherchons à réaliser avec les technologies et pourquoi. Si les technologues de l'éducation admettent pour la plupart l’importance de connaître nos orientations philosophiques, connaissent-ils pour autant ou peuvent-ils identifier avec précision, leurs orientations philosophiques de l’enseignement et de la technologie? Nous avons cherché à répondre à ces questions en évaluant la cohérence entre ce qu’affirment les technologues de l'éducation en contexte de débat professionnel et la manière dont ils identifient eux-mêmes leurs propres orientations philosophiques. Les résultats de cette étude exploratoire nous donnent un aperçu de la façon dont les technologues de l'éducation interprètent leurs orientations philosophiques de l'enseignement et de la technologie. Les philosophies de l'enseignement et de la technologie sont définies dans cette étude comme un cadre conceptuel incarnant certaines valeurs, attitudes et idéologies à partir desquelles nous considérons les aspects multi-contextuels de la pratique éducative.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.270
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it