MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3044526341 · doi:10.5539/hes.v10n3p80

Digital Practices & Applications in a Covid-19 Culture

2020· article· en· W3044526341 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christina Romero-Ivanova, Michael Shaughnessy, Laura Otto, Emily Taylor, Emma Watson

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher Education Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDigital Storytelling and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlended learningPedagogyTeaching methodDistance educationSociologyHigher educationEducational technologyBest practicePsychologyMedical educationMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article addresses reflections of one University instructor’s teaching and her pre-teacher education students’ innovative digital learning practices during the Covid-19 pandemic in Spring 2020. The question of How has one instructor embedded digital practices in her virtual teaching to engage and purposefully introduce and connect pre-teacher education students with diverse technologies and multimodalities of learning during a mandatory virtual instruction time? will be addressed and discussed. Student-centered practices such as group work, pair work, the use of Zoom breakout rooms, and multimodal literary responses through technology applications such as Flipgrid and Google Docs will be described and reflected upon. The instructor’s own teaching practices that have included weekly mentoring meetings with her education students and continuing individual coffee meetings in diverse settings will be highlighted as ways of demonstrating care and encouragement toward face-to-face students who have been transitioned as online students. The reflections outlined in this abstract draw upon the notion of technologies as providers of active interactions and will include snapshots of an instructors’ students’ digital artifacts such as Flipgrid, video-recorded monologues, and Google Doc news stories with students reflecting on the uses of multimodal technologies in their own future teaching practices. This manuscript will also include student reflections and a sidebar of suggestions for using Zoom with virtual teaching.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0280.030
Scholarly communication0.0180.008
Open science0.0020.023
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.296
GPT teacher head0.541
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations46
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigher Education StudiesSame topicDigital Storytelling and EducationFrench-language works237,207