TPACK Tried and Tested: Experiences of Post-Secondary Educators During COVID-19 Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores educators’ experiences during the rapid shift from face-to-face to emergency virtual remote teaching and learning as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. One hundred and forty educators from a Canadian province completed a survey with Likert scale and open-ended questions designed to capture their application of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) during the pandemic. Data was collected during fall of 2020. More than 50% of the study participants reported that the quality of their practice declined as they shifted from face-to-face to remote teaching as a result of the pandemic. Educators’ descriptions of their virtual remote experiences were examined using Hutchings’ (2000) taxonomy of scholarship and inquiry questions as an analytic lens. The findings suggest that educators who were more comfortable with their TPACK had an easier transition to virtual remote teaching. Institutional support, students’ digital literacy/access, and overall wellbeing were also identified as factors that influenced educators’ overall experiences.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".