Developing a Reusable Resource for Teaching Task Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many of the skills required in the practice of human factors are “process-oriented” rather than “product-oriented”; this is challenging for human factors educators because it is often more difficult to teach process-oriented skills and concepts than product-oriented skills and concepts. The Centre for Learning and Teaching Through Technology [LT3] at the University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada is involved in developing learning objects (also known as “learnware”) to help faculty overcome instructional challenges associated with teaching processes. The learnware development model used by LT3, which enables learner-centered resources to be developed, for students, and by students, to teach about processes in various disciplines will be discussed. The Task Analysis learning object developed to overcome instructional challenges experienced by human factors professors in the department of Systems Design Engineering, will illustrate LT3's learnware development model. The development of Task Analysis learnware emphasizes how the application of iterative learner-centred design can aid in teaching fundamental concepts in human factors.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".