MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3189397059

Parallel Teaching Processes to Mitigate Learning Disruption in the Pandemic

2021· article· en· W3189397059 on OpenAlexaff
Debashis Dutta

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Transformative Learning · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAdult and Continuing Education Topics
Canadian institutionsConestoga College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPatienceTransformative learningDisconnectionGriefFlexibility (engineering)PandemicPedagogyPsychologyActive learning (machine learning)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)SociologyMathematics educationSocial psychologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceMedicineManagement
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The 2020 COVID-19 worldwide pandemic has interrupted all lives in some form. For post-secondary students, moving to various form of online learning has caused additional stresses that complicate learning. The overall climate of uncertainty, fear, grief, groundlessness, and disconnection are almost ‘ethereal’ life themes that are, on the one hand, difficult to articulate, and on the other, keenly felt. Educators are inundated with training opportunities to transition to remote, hybrid, and online delivery. As teachers experience the same disruption as their students, they are in a unique and privileged position to thoughtfully engage students in a teaching-learning dynamic that models Transformative Learning principles. This essay explores four practices to connect the shared disruptions shared by students and teachers alike, while articulating parallel methods for teachers to support students. Concepts of patience, flexibility, limit-setting, and equanimity are explored as ways to enhance teaching during this pandemic. While the ‘ethereal’ pervades teaching and learning, the ideas proposed in this essay will help bridge the gap for students and teacher to experience an education that promotes transformation and ownership of 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.307
Threshold uncertainty score0.414

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Transformative LearningSame topicAdult and Continuing Education TopicsFrench-language works237,207