MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2522508585

Personalised-adaptive learning - an operational framework for developing competency-based curricula in computer information technology

2016· article· en· W2522508585 on OpenAlexaff
Jay Shiro Tashiro, Patrick C. K. Hung, Miguel Vargas Martín, Alison Brown, Frederick M. Hurst

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Innovation and Learning · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAdaptive learningCurriculumKnowledge managementIntersection (aeronautics)Conceptual frameworkAdaptation (eye)Extant taxonArtificial intelligenceEngineeringPedagogyPsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we explore the intersection of grounded theory in cognition and learning with the operational frameworks needed to develop and evaluate adaptive learning systems. As a test case, we studied an online personalised competency-based CIT curriculum at Northern Arizona University (Flagstaff, Arizona, USA). Our approach focused on strategies for adding adaptive learning capacities to an extant learning management system, with particular attention to cost-effective yet evidence-based approaches for improving learning outcomes. We designed elements that would enhance feedback and remediation for students, which required developing software engines that could integrate data collection and analysis. Such capacities are essential to drive evidence-based educational practices for CIT undergraduate and graduate programmes. Research led to a conceptual model and the operational facets for personalised-adaptive learning CIT educational environments. The conceptual and operational model described herein is called SIGNAL CIT Education - Serial Integration of Guiding Nodes for Adaptive Learning in CIT Education.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.591
Threshold uncertainty score0.284

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Innovation and LearningSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207