MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2997958041

Exploring the culture and complexity of three British Columbia post-secondary institutions in their support of instructors using educational technologies

2019· dissertation· en· W2997958041 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Judy Shandler

Bibliographic record

VenueSummit (Simon Fraser University) · 2019
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBritish Columbia Institute of Technology
KeywordsSociologyPedagogyPolitical scienceEngineering ethicsMathematics educationLibrary scienceEngineeringPsychologyComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to explore how faculty at three post-secondary institutions are supported in their use of educational technologies, given the changing landscape of institutions and the demands placed on them by the government, community, industry, and students. This study used organizational complexity and a competing values framework to examine the culture of these institutions with respect to the opportunities and challenges provided for instructors by the latest educational technologies for teaching. As a qualitative exploratory study, it employed a qualitative methodology based on literature, strategic plans, and 15 interviews with participants from three post-secondary institutions in the Vancouver lower mainland in British Columbia, Canada. The research design used was carried out in three phases. First, it examined the current strategic plans and the directions and goals of the three institutions. Second, to understand the complexity and dynamics within these institutions, it reviewed the literature available on educational and disruptive technologies, organizational culture, trends in higher education, strategic plans, and theoretical frameworks. Third, it considered the direct experiences of eight instructors and seven administrators who work at the three institutions. The study made four key recommendations: 1) adopt an “in the moment concept” with respect to support for educational technologies as needed, 2) set up an “educational technology playground” for instructors to give them an opportunity to play with the latest educational technologies, 3) rethink the culture and complexity of post-secondary institutions prior to the preparation of “strategic plans,” and 4) require “administrators” to have a better understanding of what their instructors are dealing with in regard to how they are supported in their use of educational technologies.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.396

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0210.007
Scholarly communication0.0090.001
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.211 · 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.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSummit (Simon Fraser University)→Same topicOnline and Blended Learning→French-language works237,207→