MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2593523017

Learning from Transitioning to New Technology that Supports Online and Blended Learning: A Case Study

2016· article· en· W2593523017 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Lock, Carol Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Interactive Learning Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEducational technologyComputer scienceTransition (genetics)Computer-mediated communicationProcess (computing)Blended learningKnowledge managementKey (lock)Distance educationSynchronous learningCooperative learningMultimediaThe InternetTeaching methodMathematics educationPsychologyWorld Wide Web
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transitioning from one technology to another within educational institutions is complex and multi-faceted, and requires time. such a transition involves more than making the new technology available for use. it requires knowing the people involved, designing differentiated support structures, and integrating various resources to meet their learning needs and preferences. The purpose of this article is to share a case study that examined a transition process that occurred in a faculty of education as it changed both its learning management systems and the synchronous audiographic web conferencing program. The study investigated factors that influenced the transition (e.g., communication, nature and type of educational development in fostering online teaching capacity). Three key implications of practice are shared that influence a successful transition to new technology.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0070.005
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.364 · 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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Interactive Learning ResearchSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207