MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2983169286 · doi:10.34190/eel.19.150

Problem Based Learning: A Facilitator of Computational Thinking

2019· article· en· W2983169286 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tanja Svarre Jonasen, Sandra Burri Gram-Hansen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTeaching and Learning Programming
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFacilitatorComputational thinkingConstructiveComputer scienceProblem-based learningMathematics educationEmpowermentKnowledge managementFocus (optics)Digital learningArtificial intelligencePsychologyMultimediaProcess (computing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

These proceedings represent the work of contributors to 18th European Conference on e-Learning (ECEL 2019), hosted by Aalborg University, Copenhagen, Denmark on 7-8 November 2019. The Conference Co-Chairs are Rikke Ørngreen, Mie Buhl and Bente Meyer, and, all from Aalborg University, Copenhagen, Denmark. ECEL is now a well-established event on the academic research calendar and now in its 18th year the key aim remains the opportunity for participants to share ideas and meet the people who hold them. The scope of papers will ensure an interesting two days. The subjects covered illustrate the wide range of topics that fall into this important and ever-growing area of research. The opening keynote presentation is given by Anthony “Skip” Baisel, from the Queen Mary University of London on the topic of Higher Education Pedagogy using Game Design. The second day of the conference will open with interactive collaborative keynote by Mie Buhl, Bente Meyer, Rikke Ørngreen, on the topic of Does IT work? Investigating factors at play in e-learning research. With an initial submission of 181 abstracts, after the double blind, peer review process there are 76 Academic research papers, 3 PhD research papers, and 26 work-in-progress papers published in these Conference Proceedings. These papers represent research from Austria, Belgium, Bhutan, Canada, Chile, China, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Greenland, Hong Kong, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, South Africa, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, The Netherlands, Turkey, UAE, UK and USA.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.004

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTeaching and Learning ProgrammingFrench-language works237,207