MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3113481578 · doi:10.37119/ojs2020.v26i1.452

Unleashing the Learners: Teacher Self-Efficacy in Facilitating School-Based Makerspaces

2020· article· en· W3113481578 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Marguerite Koole, Kerry Ann Anderson, Jay Wilson

Bibliographic record

Venuein education · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDesign Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersuasionPsychologyVariety (cybernetics)PedagogySelf-efficacyQualitative researchMedical educationSociologySocial psychologyMedicineSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This qualitative research project explored the key characteristics, attitudes, and experiences of makerspace facilitators in Saskatchewan. The aim was to gather knowledge and wisdom from early adopters of makerspace from a variety of contexts ranging from tinkerspaces to increasingly popular school-based spaces in order to inform early and career-educators of the skills and attitudes conducive to creating and leading dynamic activity spaces. The questions for the semi-structured interviews were based on Bandura’s (1977; 1997) self-efficacy expectations: performance accomplishments, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal. The findings align with those of other studies in that they point towards key areas of experience: the value of productive failure, relinquishing control, and modes of support. We conclude that there is a need to help preservice and early career educators to become prepared and confident makerspace facilitators. To this end, we offer four suggestions for new makerspace facilitators: aim towards unleashing, allow others to be the experts and leaders, celebrate success and failure, and openly seek and offer support. Keywords: makerspace, self-efficacy, motivation, early career educators, productive failure

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)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuein educationSame topicDesign Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207