MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065829521 · doi:10.1177/1469787404043809

Designing Learning as Well as Teaching

2004· article· en· W2065829521 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueActive Learning in Higher Education · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReflective Practices in Education
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSummative assessmentFormative assessmentMathematics educationComputer scienceActive learning (machine learning)Teaching methodHigher educationInstructional designPedagogyPsychologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many teachers of higher education wish to provide instruction that supports student learning while not always finding it easy to implement the desire. The model for a unit of instruction described here provides a mental map to overlay decisions about instructional strategies in order to assess the extent to which they align with theories of learning and with research in higher education directed to supporting learning. The model provides a framework that highlights the critical role of practice, structure and formative feedback in the learner’s preparation for formal summative assessment and is proposed as a design tool and a chronology for instruction and for learning.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.753
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.378 · 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