MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1538070008 · doi:10.21432/t2bs35

Learning for Teaching: Building Professional Knowledge on a National Scale

2009· article· en· W1538070008 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elizabeth A Hartnell-Young

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Learning and Technology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Systems and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyPedagogyPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper takes a large-scale social perspective in describing a national project in Australia that was premised on local school communities working together and contributing ideas for the benefit of their students, and potentially, the whole country. The project was intended to improve schools’ capacity for educating boys, and in the long-term, the learning outcomes of under-performing boys, using evidence-based and action research methods. It was supported by the web spaces and tools of the National Quality Schooling Framework and Think.com. This paper emphasises the structures and processes teachers engaged in while building knowledge through their daily work, where the resulting ideas became the property of the whole community. Analyses focus on the extent to which an underlying social structure for knowledge building developed in various parts of the nation during the project, making it possible to characterize a process for innovations in education with commitment to continual idea improvement. Résumé Le présent article adopte une perspective sociale à grande échelle pour décrire un projet national en Australie fondé sur la collaboration des communautés scolaires locales et leur contribution d’idées au bénéfice de leurs élèves et, éventuellement, de l’ensemble du pays. Le projet avait pour but de rendre les écoles plus aptes à éduquer les garçons et, à long terme, d’améliorer les résultats d’apprentissage des garçons qui sous-performent à l’aide de méthodes de recherche-action fondées sur des données probantes. Il a bénéficié du soutien des espaces et des outils Web du National Quality Schooling Framework et de Think.com. Le présent article met l’accent sur les structures et les processus que les enseignants ont utilisés dans leur travail quotidien pour la coélaboration de connaissances; les idées qui en ont résulté sont par la suite devenues la propriété de l’ensemble de la communauté. Les analyses portent principalement sur la mesure dans laquelle une structure sociale sous-jacente de coélaboration des connaissances s’est développée en différents endroits de la nation au cours du projet, ce qui rend possible la caractérisation d’un processus d’innovation en éducation avec un engagement envers l’amélioration continue.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score0.934

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.355 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Learning and TechnologySame topicEducation Systems and PolicyFrench-language works237,207