MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3137145666 · doi:10.19173/irrodl.v22i1.4910

Preparing Educators to Teach in a Digital Age

2021· article· en· W3137145666 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicE-Learning and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDonau-Universität KremsNational Agency for Strategic Research in Medical EducationMashhad University of Medical Sciences
KeywordsBATESOpen educational resourcesElectronic learningEducational technologyMathematics educationComputer scienceElectronic publishingTeaching methodWork (physics)Distance educationPedagogyMultimediaSociologyLibrary sciencePsychologyWorld Wide WebThe InternetEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes the practical implementation of parts of Teaching in a Digital Age: Guidelines for Designing Teaching and Learning by A.W. Bates (2015) in a course for educators in Austria and the development of medical education for universities in Iran. With the publication of the second edition of Teaching in a Digital Age in 2019, the authors show the impact of the book in training educators and developers of educational content. This note from the field emphasizes the benefits of making informed decisions about educational technologies using Bates’ (2015) SECTIONS model and of learning about massive open online courses (MOOCs) and how to work with them using his book.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.907
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.003
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.359 · 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