DEVELOPING A SELF-PACED ONLINE COURSE FOR GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PREVENTION EDUCATION: PROCESS AND LESSONS LEARNED
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
Research in universities shows that experiences of gender-based violence (GBV) are common among the student population. STATSCAN data reports 1 in 5 female students will experience gender-based violence before they leave university or college. Furthermore, in a recent climate survey of post-secondary institutions it was found that 71% of students at Canadian postsecondary schools either witnessed or experienced unwanted sexualized behaviours in a postsecondary setting,47% of students at Canadian post-secondary institutions witnessed or experienced discrimination on the basis of gender, gender identity or sexual orientation in the past year; 41% of all reported incidents of sexual assault were reported by students and 4 out of 5 undergraduate students surveyed at Canadian universities reported experiencing dating violence. Intervention initiatives in the form of online courses are sparse but show promising capabilities to reach and engage with large student communities. This paper describes the process and lessons learned in the development of a self-paced online course as one of many initiatives taken to prevent gender-based violence incidents on a Canadian university campus. Initially, the general framework for GBV education and prevention will be explained, and how it led to the creation of a micro e-learning collection. Then, the development methodology will be explained, using the ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation) model to organize all decisions made, emphasizing on the analysis and design phases. Elements considered in the analysis were: (1) the requirements for the qualifications of students and student leaders, (2) reasoning for self-paced online approach, and (3) technical infrastructure and requirements. In terms of design, considered topics were: (1) content and curriculum, (2) learning approach, and (3)collaboration and networks. The evaluation plan is a long-term, phased approach that includes evaluation of: (1) the learning environment, design, and accessibility; (2) student satisfaction and engagement, (3) student learning and learning outcomes, and (4) relevance and impact. Finally, some lessons learned, and preliminary results of implementation will be discussed.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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