Design of Innovative Pedagogical Systems on Interdisciplinary Basis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The urgency of the problem raised in the article is determined by: evolutionary trends in education related to the need to design prospects for its development on an innovative basis; undeveloped conceptual foundations of designing innovative pedagogical systems on an interdisciplinary basis, reflecting the dialectical unity of theoretical and technological aspects of the design process; increasing the requirements for the quality of design activities in the process of preparation for practical implementation and improvement of innovations; insufficient development of the technological and methodological apparatus for measuring and evaluating the effectiveness of the process of designing innovative pedagogical systems on an interdisciplinary basis; the need to create an infrastructure for pedagogical design and accumulation of a database of pedagogical projects. The research was conducted as a project study (DBR) for three years (2017-2020) using mixed methods: unstructured interviews, the method of expert evaluations (based on the method of pairwise comparison), qualimetric methods of assessing the quality of pedagogical projects, statistical methods of data processing and testing hypotheses. The study showed that the effectiveness of the design of innovative pedagogical systems on an interdisciplinary basis is ensured by the creation of an external information and educational environment for the design of innovative systems and monitoring of design activities. In terms of content, they reflect the main provisions of the study and provide its experimental verification. The study developed an instrument for expert evaluation of projects of innovative pedagogical systems on an interdisciplinary basis, covering the project presentation scheme, summative and prognostic criteria of examination in socio-pedagogical, psychological and pedagogical, scientific and methodical, managerial and technical areas, methods of project quality assessment. The conclusions and recommendations of the study can be the basis for improving the educational process in educational institutions, as well as the development of pedagogical design practices.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".