MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280617681 · doi:10.15173/ijsap.v6i1.4807

Students as Partners: A critical-digital partnership model for redesigning the language curriculum

2022· article· en· W4280617681 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Seb Dianati, Robin Tonkin, Franciele Spinelli

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Students as Partners · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Practises and Engagement
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipCurriculumScholarshipParticipatory action researchPedagogyMathematics educationWork (physics)Citizen journalismSociologyPolitical sciencePsychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The global COVID-19 pandemic has caused considerable and drastic changes to teaching and learning, forcing many teachers to adopt an online pedagogical approach. This disruption has caused traditional universities to change how their curriculum is delivered and also revisit how learning occurs. While we are indeed living in challenging times, we argue that this defining moment will become the impetus for pedagogical reform wherein new methods of teaching and learning will emerge. In this paper, we bring together three broad subjects of teaching and learning scholarship: (a) learning design, (b) critical pedagogy, and (c) student partnership. We contend that together, these three fields provide room for students to become actors and agents of their own learning through student-led learning design. Using critical participatory action research (CPAR) spanning 4 years and 22 projects, this case study offers a starting point for learning designers and student partners to work together in nine different instructional design models.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Qualitativehigh
grokno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Qualitativehigh
opusno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Qualitativehigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.357
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.595
Teacher spread0.475 · 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

Labeled directly by 3 models reading the full record.

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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Students as PartnersSame topicHigher Education Practises and EngagementFrench-language works237,207