MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2764288510 · doi:10.14434/ijdl.v8i1.22703

Designing a Makerspace for Pre- and In-Service Teachers

2017· article· en· W2764288510 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marguerite Koole, Jordan Epp, Kerry Ann Anderson, Robert Hepner, Mohammad Hossain

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Designs for Learning · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Development and Digital Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical educationSpace (punctuation)Service (business)PedagogyTest (biology)PsychologySociologyMathematics educationMedicineComputer scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many educators view makerspaces as a means of increasing student engagement in K-12 classrooms. As faculty and staff of the College of Education at the University of Saskatchewan, we have noted low comfort levels in using and experimenting with technology. For this reason, we decided to create a place in which pre-service teachers could test and discuss technologies that they could eventually use in their teaching practice. Our endeavor eventually morphed into a space for current teachers, student teachers, technical support staff, faculty members, and interested community members. Having piloted workshops for six months, we are now evaluating our decisions and shaping new approaches for the current academic year. Our main challenges include ensuring inclusivity across age, gender, and culture; adopting suitable facilitation styles; and ensuring the workshops lead to useful discussions of technology and teaching practice.

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)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Designs for LearningSame topicChild Development and Digital TechnologyFrench-language works237,207