Optimizing Conditions for Learning and Teaching in K-20 Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A long debate in education has been whether to separate the study of children's pedagogy from the study of adults' andragogy or whether it is better to bring the two under one umbrella. In this chapter, the authors propose a third, and hopefully, more fruitful view. Their contention is that in order to understand teaching and learning, one needs to examine the conditions or contexts under which teaching and learning occur. Thus, the goal is to address the question “How does one optimize the conditions for all learners and, by the same token, optimize the conditions for all teachers?” Understanding conditions or contexts helps one to view learning and teaching as part of a larger whole. Contexts affect people, resources, place, and time. This position goes beyond the “fixing” of an individual learner, whether child or adult, and an individual teacher. In this chapter, the authors discuss the following: a) optimizing conditions for all learners and b) optimizing conditions for all teachers. They do so by framing the discussion around several key principles from educational psychology, learning sciences, and adult education.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".