Balancing Technology, Pedagogy and the New Normal: Post-pandemic Challenges for Higher Education
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
Abstract The Covid-19 pandemic has presented an opportunity for rethinking assumptions about education in general and higher education in particular. In the light of the general crisis the pandemic caused, especially when it comes to the so-called emergency remote teaching (ERT), educators from all grades and contexts experienced the necessity of rethinking their roles, the ways of supporting the students’ learning tasks and the image of students as self-organising learners, active citizens and autonomous social agents. In our first Postdigital Science and Education paper, we sought to distil and share some expert advice for campus-based university teachers to adapt to online teaching and learning. In this sequel paper, we ask ourselves: Now that campus-based university teachers have experienced the unplanned and forced version of Online Learning and Teaching (OLT), how can this experience help bridge the gap between online and in-person teaching in the following years? The four experts, also co-authors of this paper, interviewed aligning towards an emphasis on pedagogisation rather than digitalisation of higher education, with strategic decision-making being in the heart of post-pandemic practices. Our literature review of papers published in the last year and analysis of the expert answers reveal that the ‘forced’ experience of teaching with digital technologies as part of ERT can gradually give place to a harmonious integration of physical and digital tools and methods for the sake of more active, flexible and meaningful learning.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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