MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1541659453

Online Teaching and University Policy: Investigating the Disconnect

2007· article· en· W1541659453 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lori Wallace

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational journal of e-learning & distance education · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLigneHumanitiesPolitical scienceContext (archaeology)WorkloadFace (sociological concept)SociologyManagementArtSocial scienceGeographyEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Universities are just beginning to experience the impact of the increasing use of online technologies on academic policies and procedures originally formulated for the traditional face-to-face teaching context. In this case study, the experience of one university is used to demonstrate the types of policies that require examination and modification as well as the areas in which new policies may be required. Examples of policies and issues that are common to most universities are examined, and include instructor responsibilities and workload, course evaluation, grading and evaluation of students, privacy and records, copyright clearance of third-party materials, and ownership of intellectual property. The review suggests that the work involved in policy updating in a changing environment can be challenging but it is important that direction be provided at both the micro and macro policy levels. The work involved in addressing policy issues, even at the micro level, can range from the relatively simple tasks of providing clearer wording to changes requiring collective bargaining. Les universités commencent à peine à ressentir l’impact de l’augmentation de l’utilisation des technologies en ligne sur les politiques académiques et les procédures conçues à l’origine pour le contexte traditionnel de l’enseignement en face à face. Cette étude de cas, en relatant l’expérience d’une université, tente de démontrer quels types de politiques doivent être examinés, modifiés ou créés. Des exemples de politiques et de problématiques communes à la plupart des universités sont examinés. Ils comprennent les tâches et responsabilités des formateurs, l’évaluation des cours, la notation et l’évaluation des étudiants, les archives et la vie privée, la libération des droits d’auteur du matériel de tierces parties et la propriété intellectuelle. Les études suggèrent que le travail de mise à jour des politiques dans un environnement en évolution peut être envisagé comme un défi, mais il est important de lui donner une direction, tant au niveau micro- que macro-politique. Ce travail consistant à prendre en compte les problématiques politiques, même au niveau micro, peut comprendre des tâches relativement simples comme clarifier le sens des mots jusqu’à des tâches complexes comme la négociation de conventions collectives.

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)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.225

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.012
Science and technology studies0.0110.043
Scholarly communication0.0300.040
Open science0.0030.016
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations19
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational journal of e-learning & distance educationSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207