MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107812527 · doi:10.1080/13601440701860185

A dual‐mode university instructional design model for academic development

2008· article· en· W2107812527 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael Power

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal for Academic Development · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInstructional designLignePedagogySociologyDialog boxHigher educationLibrary scienceOnline learningComputer sciencePolitical scienceHumanitiesMultimediaArtWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Online learning is expanding rapidly today in many Canadian universities. Fuelled by Canada's unprecedented broadband access, online teaching is creating new challenges for faculty and new responsibilities for educational developers. Although there is adequate literature with regard to faculty thinking about course planning in general, there are few publications on how they actually plan for online teaching. The purpose of this applied research study was to develop an instructional design model adapted to the needs and resources of faculty at a dual‐mode university (offering courses both on‐campus and online). Using a case study methodology, this project documented the prototype‐building, its implementation and gradual modification in response to faculty feedback. Results indicate that faculty preferred a more traditional, discipline‐based course design model for online course planning and shunned high‐level instructional design, opting for lighter‐weight, dialog‐rich instructional design emphasizing real‐time, faculty–student interaction. De nos jours, l'apprentissage en ligne gagne rapidement du terrain dans plusieurs universités. Et l'apprentissage en ligne amène de nouveaux défis pour les enseignants tout comme de nouvelles responsabilités pour les conseillers pédagogiques. L'objectif de cette recherche appliquée était de développer un modèle de design pédagogique qui est adapté aux besoins et aux ressources des enseignants provenant d'une université dont les cours sont dispensés à la fois sur le campus et en ligne. A l'aide de la méthode des études de cas, cette recherche a documenté le développement d'un prototype, sa mise en oeuvre et sa modification graduelle en réponse au feedback obtenu auprès des enseignants. Les résultats indiquent que les enseignants préfèrent un modèle de design pédagogique davantage traditionnel, axé sur la discipline, pour la planification des cours en ligne et qu'ils ont évité le design pédagogique de haut niveau.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations27
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal for Academic DevelopmentSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207