MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1533172554 · doi:10.19173/irrodl.v7i3.367

Online Faculty Development and Assessment System (OFDAS)

2006· article· en· W1533172554 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Olga María Alegre de la Rosa

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Environments and Student Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFaculty developmentProfessional developmentMedical educationDistance educationOnline teachingOnline learningPsychologyEducational technologyProcess (computing)Quality (philosophy)PerceptionHigher educationKnowledge managementComputer scienceMathematics educationPedagogyMultimediaMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rapid growth of online learning has led to the development of faculty inservice evaluation models that are geared towards the demands of quality improvement of degree programs. Based on the best practices of student online assessment, the Online Faculty Development and Assessment System (OFDAS) created at the Canary Islands was designed to serve the dual purpose of faculty development and classroom learning environment assessment. Results of analyses showed that OFDAS maximized the potential of online faculty development to encourage staff to reflect on teaching professional skills. Implications were discussed in terms of emphasizing the process of online teaching knowledge learning and incorporating perspectives to capture a comprehensive view of faculty teaching attitudes and their association with student classroom learning perceptions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.010

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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.530
Teacher spread0.376 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed LearningSame topicEducational Environments and Student OutcomesFrench-language works237,207