MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2214112168 · doi:10.5590/jerap.2015.05.1.02

The Learning Experience: Training Teachers Using Online Synchronous Environments

2015· article· en· W2214112168 on OpenAlexaff
Stuart Woodcock, Ashley Sisco, Michelle J. Eady

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Educational Research and Practice · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisPsychologySubject matterMathematics educationBlended learningQualitative propertyComputer scienceStatistical analysisMedical educationQualitative researchEducational technologyPedagogyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the effectiveness of an online synchronous platform used for training preservice teachers. A blended learning approach was implemented. Fifty-three students participated in the course. Qualitative interview data and quantitative survey data were collected about students’ experiences using the platform, and analyzed via thematic content analysis and statistical analysis, respectively. The findings show that e-learning synchronous technology is an effective learning tool in enhancing preservice teachers’ e-learning competency in subject matter and information communication technology skills. However, preservice teachers’ competency to learn and implement e-learning for students is dependent on four hierarchal conditions (a) ease of use, (b) psychologically safe environment, (c) e-learning self-efficacy, and, (d) competency. Implications from the findings and future research recommendations are also presented.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.333
GPT teacher head0.551
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations65
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Educational Research and PracticeSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207