MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ubiquitous Learning and the Future of Teaching

2012· article· en· W1824298124 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nicholas C. Burbules

Bibliographic record

VenueEncounters in Theory and History of Education · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExperiential learningSituatedGeneral partnershipProcess (computing)Active learning (machine learning)Set (abstract data type)Cooperative learningFormal learningSituated learningCollaborative learningProfessional learning communityInformal learningPedagogyPsychologySociologyTeaching methodComputer sciencePolitical scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay examines the implications of anywhere/anytime, or “ubiquitous” learning for rethinking teaching as an activity. The essay touches on the following themes: (1) changes that promote learning as a more continuous process integrated into the flow of human activities; (2) changes that promote learning as a more situated and contextual process; (3) changes that promote more reflective learning; (4) changes that promote more collaborative learning; (5) changes that promote teaching in more of a partnership model with learners; (6) changes that integrate formal learning, informal learning, and situated, experiential learning; (7) changes that promote new relations with other partners in the learning process – parents, workplaces, and so on; and (8) changes that promote ubiquitous learning opportunities for teachers themselves. Each of these changes constitutes a set of opportunities, and challenges, for teaching and learning in new ways. The essay concludes with some brief observations about the implications of these changes for the professional training and development of teachers.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.748
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations53
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEncounters in Theory and History of EducationSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207