Learner-centered teaching in a Higher Education course: a case study with a recognized researcher in Sports Coaching
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sport coaching researchers have provided generous recommendations on the importance of developing coach education programs based on learner-centered teaching (LCT) principles. However, empirical studies are rare, and without concrete examples, administrators and instructors will be reluctant to adopt this approach. In this case study, we used Weimer’s (2002, 2013) five dimensions of LCT to analyze (a) the perspective of a recognized researcher in the LCT coach development field, (b) his course plan and delivery strategy, and (c) the students’ perceptions of this course. A qualitative approach was used and included different tools to collect the data. The first two authors attended all the lessons, participated in all the learning activities, and took notes in a reflective journal. At the end of the semester, they conducted a semi-structured interview to get the instructor’s perspective on the LCT approach. Finally, an e-mail was sent to the students to collect their perceptions. The data were analyzed and interpreted using concept mapping, and Weimer’s five dimensions. The results showed that (a) most of the LCT dimensions were respected in the planning and delivery of the course, (b) there were times when the instructor felt uncomfortable playing a less important role, and (c) most students had positive learning experiences, although some have been taken out of their comfort zone with this new teaching approach. The article ends with a reflection on the recent impact of COVID-19 on education in Higher Education (HE).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it