A course design workshop as a possible path from a content-centered to a learning-centered teaching
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to meet the needs of a constantly changing Society, the Universities need to constantly improve their processes of teaching and learning. To do so, it is essential that professors are fully committed and well prepared to teach aiming at students learning, instead of content delivery. Faculty development programs might be helpful to support the institution and the professors in this way. Since designing these programs is a challenging task, we intend to contribute with faculty developers by reporting our experience here. We have adapted a course design workshop developed at McGill University to our context at PUCPR, in Curitiba, South of Brazil. During the workshop, the participants had to write a new syllabus of their course, elaborate a concept map, both of them with only the essential aspects for learning. They had to define the learning outcomes and only afterwards to choose active methods to help students achieve them. Throughout the whole process, participants gave feedback to each other. The activities of the workshop, along with the fruitful discussions among professors of different backgrounds helped professors to view the content as something that supports the development of learning outcomes. Therefore, we conclude that this workshop has opened the way to methodological innovations that develop learning of higher cognitive dimensions, since the professor has established more challenging expectations for the students when writing the new teaching plan.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it