Flexible weighting in online distance education courses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Are current evaluation scheme practices really inclusive of differing teaching and learning preferences and cultural sensitivities? Are students and faculty satisfied with the assignments they have now? Do assignments accurately reflect a student’s learning and skill acquisition? How can students be given assignment options to engage them more fully without increasing workload for faculty? This paper will examine how the flexible weighting option responds to the learning needs of students by promoting their success, building on their strengths, and giving them a sense of ownership and choice. Results of this pilot project have shown that flexible weighting can encourage student engagement and reduce their stress. What does this mean for faculty? Any course with a variety of assignments can implement flexible weighting. Flexible weighting can be successfully applied in courses regardless of the method of delivery and can be adapted for courses in a variety of disciplines. RésuméLes pratiques actuelles des schémas d'évaluation tiennent-elles vraiment compte des différences d'enseignement, des préférences d'apprentissage et des sensibilités culturelles? Les étudiants et les professeurs sont-ils satisfaits des épreuves qu'ils ont maintenant? Les travaux ou examens reflètent-ils fidèlement l'apprentissage et l'acquisition de compétences d'un élève? Comment les étudiants peuvent-ils se voir proposer certains choix permettant de les engager davantage sans augmenter la charge de travail pour les professeurs? Cet article examinera comment l'option de pondération flexible répond aux besoins d'apprentissage des étudiants en favorisant leur réussite, en s'appuyant sur leurs points forts et en leur donnant un sentiment d'appartenance et de choix. Les résultats de ce projet pilote ont montré qu'une pondération flexible peut encourager l'engagement des élèves et réduire leur stress. Qu'est-ce que cela signifie pour le corps enseignant ? Tout cours avec une variété de travaux ou d'examens peut implémenter une pondération flexible. La pondération flexible peut être appliquée avec succès dans les cours, quelle que soit son mode d'administration, et peut être adaptée pour des cours de diverses disciplines.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".