Facilitating attitudinal learning in an animal behaviour and welfare MOOC
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
This case study examines the design and facilitation of a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) that focused on attitudinal learning about the topic of animal behaviour and welfare. Findings showed that a team of instructors worked together collaboratively towards realising learning goals and found the experience rewarding. While learners had mixed perceptions of gains in cognitive, affective and behavioural learning, they reported high satisfaction with lecture videos and instructor course participation. Implications for the instructional design of MOOCs and attitudinal learning are discussed based on these findings, including a discussion of MOOCs as a unique platform for attitudinal learning, and recommendations for their successful use. The recommendations include the importance of creating a collaborative instructor team, establishing high instructor presence, using interactive and collaborative learning activities, and receiving support from platform providers and institutions.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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