Evaluating Technology-Supported Teaching Learning: A Catalyst to Organizational Change
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lessons Learned1 1 The name of the project was deliberately chosen to focus attention on the organizational learned outcomes expected from the initiative. The paper makes an adjective from the project title to form, lessons learned team, lessons learned project and lessons learned materials. This was a feature of the project and we hope it does not distract the reader. was a provincially funded educational technology project based at the University of Calgary in Canada. Within a broader technology-enhanced learning program, Lessons Learned set out to provide project development support, evaluation support, and dissemination mechanisms. The paper describes some of the resources and communication structures provided. A short case study reviews the benefit of the approach through the experience of evaluating a virtual reality multimedia toolkit developed for use in biological science. We make several observations about the role of evaluation as a catalyst to improved teaching and learning as well as its contribution to desirable organizational change.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it