MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2924205335 · doi:10.55016/ojs/jet.v45i2.52228

Towards a Transforming Constructivism: Understanding Learners' Meanings and the Messages of Learning Environments

2018· article· en· W2924205335 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bonnie Shapiro

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of educational thought. · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducator Training and Historical Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstructivism (international relations)EpistemologyPsychologyLearning theoryPedagogyMathematics educationSociologyPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is based on the ideas and material presented at the invitation to deliver the 17 u, Annual University of Calgary Faculty of Education Annual Distinguished Lecture. This lecture honors the work of a member of Faculty whose research contributions have been judged to contribute significant new insight in the field of Education. The article presents the foundations of research and thinking that have inspired work to deepen knowledge about the value and use of constructivist approaches in research, teaching, and learning. The article deepens the discussion by presenting additional ideas designed to produce a transforming constructivism. A transforming constructivism goes beyond taking into account learner conceptions or ideas in the teaching/learning dialogue. It incorporates thinking about the cultural and social messages presented within the environments of learning that also must be taken into account to build a more complete story of the ways that the learner constructs meaning. illustrative dialogue on children learning about the topic light is presented from my book, What Children Bring to Light: A Constructivist Perspective on Children's Learning in Science, (1994). The article presents findings and further work that has extended and deepened understanding by featuring the messages of science learning environments in the account of learner construction of ideas.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.686
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of educational thought.Same topicEducator Training and Historical PedagogyFrench-language works237,207