MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4247545557 · doi:10.4018/9781591405948.ch002

Authentic Graduate Education for Personal and Workplace Transformation

2011· book-chapter· en· W4247545557 on OpenAlexaff
Marilyn Laiken

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education and Employability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformative learningPedagogyAuthentic learningReflection (computer programming)Power (physics)SociologyPsychologyEngineering ethicsKnowledge managementMathematics educationEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this chapter is to examine the creation of authentic learning environments in the light of adult education and transformative learning theory, using a graduate course as a case example. Authentic learning environments and authentic workplaces have much in common. They tend to be ones in which collaborative partnerships prevail over hierarchical power relationships; leadership is enabling rather than controlling; differences are viewed as rich resources for learning rather than challenges to be “managed”; reflection and critical thinking are encouraged through the development of vibrant communities of practice; conflicting ideas are surfaced through genuine dialogue; and wholeness is valued — both in the individual as a whole person, and in the understanding of groups and organisations as living systems. Traditional universities are challengingplaces in which to create learning environments that fit this description. Through an analysis of the design and implementation of Course 1130, the chapter attempts to provide specific ideas for how graduate education can contribute to significant personal change in the values, attitudes and behavior of adult learners.Request access from your librarian to read this chapter's full text.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.691
Threshold uncertainty score0.742

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIGI Global eBooksSame topicHigher Education and EmployabilityFrench-language works237,207