MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sustainability: Teaching an Interdisciplinary Threshold Concept through Traditional Lecture and Active Learning

2015· article· en· W2122110438 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovative Teaching Methodologies in Social Sciences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilitySociologyHumanitiesService-learningActive learning (machine learning)Social justicePedagogySocial sciencePhilosophyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the difficulties in teaching global sustainability in the introductory political science classes is the different emphases placed on this concept and the absence of the consensus on where the overall balance between environmental protection, economic development, and social justice should reside. Like many fuzzy concepts with which students struggle, teaching sustainability lends itself to pedagogical examination within the scholarship of threshold concepts. This article investigates students’ understanding of sustainability in the seven semesters when the concept of sustainability was introduced via role-playing simulation and compares it with the similar data from a more recent semester when simulation was supplemented with traditional lecture and classroom exercises. Ultimately, our research question is twofold: (1) How do students define a multi-faceted concept like global sustainability and (2) what is the better way to teach it – active learning only or active learning in combination with traditional instruction? Certaines des difficultés rencontrées quand on enseigne la durabilité mondiale dans des cours de base de sciences politiques sont les divers accents mis sur ces concepts et l’absence de consensus sur la question de savoir où devrait se situer l’équilibre général entre la protection de l’environnement, le développement économique et la justice sociale. Tout comme c’est le cas avec de nombreux concepts flous qui donnent des difficultés aux étudiants, l’enseignement de la durabilité se prête à un examen pédagogique au sein de la recherche sur les concepts de seuil. Cet article se penche sur la manière dont les étudiants ont compris la durabilité pendant les sept semestres au cours desquels le concept de durabilité a été présenté par le biais de simulation de jeux de rôles et il la compare aux données semblables recueillies lors d’un semestre plus récent au cours duquel la simulation a été supplémentée par des cours magistraux traditionnels et des exercices de classe. En fin de compte, notre question de recherche est double : 1) Comment les étudiants définissent-ils un concept qui présente de nombreuses facettes tel que la durabilité mondiale, et 2) Quelle est la meilleure manière de l’enseigner - exclusivement par un apprentissage actif ou par le biais d’un apprentissage actif combiné à une instruction traditionnelle?

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)0.047
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.242
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0470.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0280.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.007
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 head0.190
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.254 · 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