MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964842802 · doi:10.5430/ijhe.v8n5p29

Assessment of Instructors’ Technology Competency to be Used in the Settings of Formal and Non-Formal Education

2019· article· en· W2964842802 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Higher Education · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Practices and Challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormal educationAptitudeCompetence (human resources)Professional developmentPsychologyVocational educationPersonalityCognitionMedical educationMathematics educationPedagogyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to test the model of diagnostic assessment of the level of formedness of the competency of pedagogical staff to use teaching technologies when applied in the settings of formal and non-formal education and to see whether the model creates opportunities for designing a strategy for professional lifelong development of teaching staff. A convergent (computer-oriented and traditional) methodology was used in this study including: the methodology for examination of the motivation drivers of professional activity (K. Zamfir); “Square of Values” methodology by O. Murzina; methodology of self-assessment of vocational and pedagogical motivation, Bass’s questionnaire on orientations entitled “Personality orientations”, Henning’s methodology called “Structure of Interests”, Criteria Cognitive Aptitude Test. It has been proved that the majority of teaching staff demonstrated the imitative and reproductive level of formedness of the professional competency consistent with all criteria. It seems that educators strive for self-improvement and self-development in using teaching technology in formal and non-formal education settings. This study results can be well used either to develop the structure and content of the professional development or post-graduation programs for the teaching personnel at the instructional institutions or to assess of the level of formedness of the professional competence of pedagogical staff to use teaching technologies in the settings of formal and non-formal education. The study attempts for the first time ever to assess professionalism-related competency in using teaching technology in formal and non-formal education settings and to specify the value orientations, motives, needs, spectrum of knowledge, skills, and abilities comprising the level of proficiency in this area as it is viewed through the needs of the labour market.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.482
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.375 · 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