MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978320077 · doi:10.5539/ies.v2n3p130

A Case Study of Faculty Development through Distance Education: Teaching Early Childhood Students in the United States and South Korea

2009· article· en· W1978320077 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Eunsoon Oh, Judith Cochran

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducation and Learning Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPresentation (obstetrics)CurriculumDistance educationFaculty developmentPsychologyEarly childhoodPedagogyMathematics educationProfessional developmentHigher educationMedical educationPolitical scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This unique format of distance education instruction was executed between multiple faculty, staff and graduate students at the University of Missouri, St. Louis and the faculty and undergraduate students at Kongju National University in South Korea. The method of instruction allowed for visual presentation from one country while only one person at a time was able to react from the other country. The purpose of the seminar was to test the use of distance education for a course in early childhood education in Korea and the United States. The undergraduate students at the Korean university also increased their ability to speak and write in English. This case study indicates a possibility for delivering cultural and curricular expertise for university faculty and staff development in a much needed area of cultural education. As a result of this course, the American and Korean faculty and students are much more knowledgeable of each other customs, history and early childhood curriculum as well as English language skills. This knowledge in turn, will enable them to better understand in their own classes. The course was a success as indicated by continued faculty and student engagement.

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)0.000
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.437
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicEducation and Learning InterventionsFrench-language works237,207