MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3085792691 · doi:10.22492/ije.8.3.05

Framing Undergraduate Perspectives on Experiential Learning Within Soka Education Theory

2020· article· en· W3085792691 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueIAFOR Journal of Education · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAdult and Continuing Education Topics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph-Humber
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExperiential learningFraming (construction)Mathematics educationPedagogyPsychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reports findings on two studies that explored undergraduate perspectives of experiential learning as a pedagogy that can produce impactful outcomes that align with Makiguchi's concept of Soka (value-creating) education. The twin studies examined perspectives of undergraduate faculty and students by investigating how experiential learning is viewed in terms of its impact on students' sense of happiness and satisfaction, acquired knowledge and skills, and potential for positively contributing to societal welfare. The article addresses how experiential learning provides critical opportunities for students to create value for making significant impact on the wellbeing of both the students and the wider society. Ten instructors and twelve students from a small university in Toronto, Canada, answered a series of identical questions in confidential semi-structured interviews. The data were analyzed for themes related to Makiguchi's values of beauty, gain, and good. A key finding from the analysis suggests that instructors and students agree on the primary importance that experiential learning holds for the value of personal gain (among other things knowledge and skill acquisition), while the values of beauty and social good were seen to be important, but of lesser significance. It is noted that while certain limitations to the research exist, nevertheless, it is suggested that incorporating value creating principles within undergraduate course learning objectives may provide opportunities for encouraging more transformative reflection and action for learners, not only in the pursuit of their own individual happiness, but also for the broader societal context.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.224
Threshold uncertainty score0.426

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.319 · 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