MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111537439 · doi:10.22329/celt.v8i0.4227

Fostering Student Engagement: Creative Problem-Solving in Small Group Facilitations

2015· article· en· W2111537439 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Patricia Samson

Bibliographic record

VenueCollected Essays on Learning and Teaching · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformative learningExperiential learningContext (archaeology)PsychologyMathematics educationPedagogyTeaching methodCurriculumCritical thinkingActive learning (machine learning)ExcellenceDialogical selfCreativityCooperative learningComputer scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Creative Problem-Solving (CPS) can be a transformative teaching methodology that supports a dialogical learning atmosphere that can transcend the traditional classroom and inspire excellence in students by linking real life experiences with the curriculum. It supports a sense of inquiry that incorporates both experiential learning and the development of critical thinking skills. Incorporating active learning strategies in a way that transcends the classroom and sparks interest and passion for students is an important pedagogical ingredient for educators. The key question driving this study is how can CPS as a teaching method be used to motivate students and engage them in a process of active learning within the context of a social policy course? This study examines student engagement and motivation in a problem-centred approach to teaching and learning, and provides a concrete example of a CPS exercise couched in small group facilitations to support peer 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.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 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

Citations61
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCollected Essays on Learning and TeachingSame topicEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207