MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Between Knowing and Learning: New Instructors' Experiences in Active Learning Classrooms

2018· article· en· W2801274633 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Andrea Phillipson, Annie Riel, Andy Leger

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Environments and Student Outcomes
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of CanadaQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformative learningPedagogyActive learning (machine learning)PsychologyMathematics educationHumanitiesArtComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past 20 years, interest in the impact of space on teaching and learning has grown, and higher education institutions have responded by creating Active Learning Classrooms (ALCs)—spaces designed to promote active, student-centred learning. While ALC research has explored teaching methods, student experience, and student learning, less is known about how teaching in these spaces affects instructors. We contribute to this discussion by investigating teachers’ educational development in these spaces. We asked new instructors to reflect on their ALC experiences, exploring their pre-course preparation and their perceptions about themselves, their students, and teaching and learning. Their reflections revealed key differences between knowing and learning: Although all participants knew about and were dedicated to student-centred pedagogy before teaching in the ALCs, teaching in these spaces prompted transformative learning through which they shifted both their behaviours and perceptions about student learning and about their own roles in the classroom. Au cours des 20 dernières années, l’intérêt consacré à l’impact de l’espace sur l’enseignement et l’apprentissage a augmenté et les établissements d’enseignement supérieur ont répondu en créant des classes d’apprentissage actif (CAA) – des espaces consacrés à la promotion de l’apprentissage actif centré sur l’étudiant. Alors que la recherche portant sur les CAA a exploré les méthodes d’enseignement, l’expérience des étudiants et l’apprentissage des étudiants, on s’est moins intéressé à la question de savoir comment le fait d’enseigner dans ces espaces affectait les instructeurs. Nous contribuons à cette discussion en examinant le développement éducationnel des enseignants dans ces espaces. Nous avons demandé à de nouveaux instructeurs de réfléchir à leurs expériences en CAA, d’explorer leurs préparations avant les cours et leurs perceptions sur eux-mêmes, sur leurs étudiants et sur l’enseignement et l’apprentissage. Leurs réflexions ont révélé des différences majeures entre savoir et apprendre : bien que tous les participants aient été au courant, avant d’enseigner dans une classe d’apprentissage actif, de la pédagogie centrée sur l’apprenant et y aient été dévoués, l’enseignement dans ces espaces a engendré un apprentissage transformateur qui a abouti à un changement à la fois dans leurs comportements et dans leurs perceptions sur l’apprentissage des étudiants ainsi que sur leurs propres rôles dans la salle de classe.

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)0.007
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.008
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations26
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and LearningSame topicEducational Environments and Student OutcomesFrench-language works237,207