MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4234733972 · doi:10.21432/t2jk5q

The Learning Object Economy: Implications For Developing Faculty Expertise

2002· article· en· W4234733972 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
The COHERE Group

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Learning and Technology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOpen Education and E-Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAllianceBATESAgency (philosophy)Educational technologyKnowledge managementExperiential learningLearning sciencesSociologySociocultural evolutionHigher educationProcess (computing)Active learning (machine learning)Open learningCooperative learningPedagogyPublic relationsPolitical scienceTeaching methodComputer scienceEngineeringSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The evolving use of learning technologies and systems, such as learning object systems, to support more social learning environments in which learners have more agency than ever before to construct their own learning experiences is an innovation that involves both faculty and learners in a process of difficult sociocultural change. Programs of faculty support that acknowledge that faculty’s learning needs extend beyond the development of technical skills to the development of new pedagogical skills are indicated. This paper argues that the evolving concept of learning objects systems, and the "economy" that is emerging around the idea of sharable, reusable learning objects managed by repositories, presents new challenges and opportunities for our community. Faculty working with these systems may need to be supported through a personal process of reconceptualizing the nature of teaching and learning within these environments. This process of personal transformation has the potential for change in institutional policy and practice, the institutional cultural change of which Tony Bates (2000) and others speak (cf. Advisory Committee for Online Learning, 2000). The Collaboration for Online Higher Education Research (COHERE) is an alliance of eight research-intensive Canadian universities that is examining these challenges through a multi-pronged research program, one focus of which is supporting faculty as they research their own practice related to technology-enhanced teaching innovations. More specifically, this paper is itself a collaboration among the COHERE partners to share our collective belief about the potential for faculty and institutional transformation through participation in these "e-learning evolutions".

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.249 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Learning and TechnologySame topicOpen Education and E-LearningFrench-language works237,207