MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Usos pedagógicos de las TIC según la actividad creativa del discente

2019· article· es· W2941023892 on OpenAlexaff
Margarida Roméro, Thérèse Laferrière, Luz Elena Tarango Hernández, Azeneth Patiño Zúñiga

Bibliographic record

VenueEDUTECH REVIEW International Education Technologies Review / Revista Internacional de Tecnologías Educativas · 2019
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldComputer Science
TopicE-Learning and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformation and Communications TechnologyConsumption (sociology)HumanitiesPolitical scienceSociologyArtSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La integración de las tecnologías de la información y de la comunicación (TIC) en educación ha generado grandes esperanzas y, en algunos casos, ha generado innovaciones tecnológicas sin los fundamentos educativos necesarios. Algunos usos pedagógicos de las TIC permiten un mejor aprendizaje mediado por la tecnología (Laferrière et al., 2015) pero también existen usos de las TIC que ponen al alumno en situaciones de consumo pasivo o interactivo. Con el objetivo de integrar las TIC para mejorar el aprendizaje y analizar los límites de los usos actuales, presentamos cinco niveles de usos educativos de las TIC: (1) el consumo pasivo; (2) el consumo interactivo; (3) la creación de contenido individual; (4) la co-creación de contenido; y (5) la co-creación participativa de conocimientos orientada a la comprensión o la resolución de problemas en una comunidad de aprendizaje.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.667
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0080.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.005

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.325 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEDUTECH REVIEW International Education Technologies Review / Revista Internacional de Tecnologías EducativasSame topicE-Learning and Knowledge ManagementFrench-language works237,207