MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3118300176 · doi:10.22329/jtl.v14i1.6246

A Syllabi Analysis of Social Media for Teaching and Learning Courses

2020· article· en· W3118300176 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Enilda Romero‐Hall, Linlin Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Teaching and Learning · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Tampa
KeywordsSyllabusSocial mediaMathematics educationPedagogyPsychologyMedical educationSociologyComputer scienceWorld Wide WebMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this syllabi analysis was to explore the structure of courses focused on social media and geared towards education professionals. Fourteen course syllabi from institutions located within the United States (U.S) were analyzed as part of this investigation. The results of the analysis revealed a total of 46 unique topic themes across the different courses. The findings show that the most common course objectives aimed to encourage application and practice of social media as part of a learning experience and the learners’ professional practice. In total, the syllabi listed 67 unique required readings including: non-peer reviewed publications, peer-reviewed journal articles, and textbooks. Last, the analysis of the assignments listed in the syllabi show that in these social media courses, there were a mix of traditional and non-traditional assessment methods. These non-traditional assessment methods focused on integrating social media as part of the assessment in which learners were required to create a social media account, become familiar with it, and create learning experiences incorporating a specific social media platform.

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)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0090.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Teaching and LearningSame topicImpact of Technology on AdolescentsFrench-language works237,207