MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145566127

The Clash of Cultures: Hybrid Learning Course Development as Management of Tension

2010· article· en· W2145566127 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Peter Cowie, Mark Nichols

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational journal of e-learning & distance education · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLigneHumanitiesContext (archaeology)SociologyPhilosophyGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using a case study approach, this paper considers e-learning project management from the perspective of navigating tension between faculty and instructional design/ e-learning expertise, in the context of as the bridging of two distinctive cultures. The diffusion of e-learning in an institution where, historically, faculty have been independent teachers and have not made extensive use of e-learning techniques, generated tension when a team-based approach to course design was adopted. Relationships, it is suggested, are as important as project timelines in such a setting. Resume Par le biais d’une approche d’etude de cas, cet article examine la gestion de projets d’apprentissage en ligne du point de vue de la navigation de la tension entre le corps professoral et les experts en strategies de mise en forme/apprentissage en ligne, dans un contexte de rapprochement entre les deux cultures distinctes. La diffusion de l’apprentissage en ligne dans un etablissement ou, historiquement, le corps professoral a ete compose de professeurs independants qui n’ont pas fait un usage extensif des techniques d’apprentissage en ligne, a genere de la tension lorsqu’une approche d’equipe pour la conception des cours a ete adoptee. Les relations, suggere l’article, sont aussi importantes dans un tel environnement que le sont les echeanciers de projet.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations21
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational journal of e-learning & distance educationSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207