MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386532932 · doi:10.19173/irrodl.v24i3.7109

OXREF: Open XR for Education Framework

2023· article· en· W4386532932 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Ishan Sudeera Abeywardena

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOnline Learning and Analytics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsOpen educational resourcesOperationalizationKnowledge managementComputer scienceSustainabilityMixed realityAugmented realityOpen educationCloud computingAffordanceEquity (law)World Wide WebPolitical scienceHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extended reality (XR), which encompasses virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and mixed reality (MR), offers powerful affordances for improving teaching and learning experiences in a post-pandemic world. Increasingly, many governments and institutions around the world are making major investments in XR technologies to prepare education systems for the future. However, many of these investments remain isolated pilot projects which, while they attest to the potential of XR in education, are unlikely to be scaled up due to lack of sustainability and collaboration. Based on literature and empirical evidence, I have identified major barriers to the wider adoption of XR in education, including the lack of (a) open content, tools, and skills; (b) sound pedagogy and instructional design; and (c) scalability and sustainability. As a potential solution, I introduce the Open XR for Education Framework (OXREF), an empirical framework that proposes a holistic solution to XR object creation, implementation, and deployment, while covering pedagogical, technological, and policy perspectives. The contribution of the OXREF is its ability to build fit-for-purpose XR experiences in a scalable, sustainable, and collaborative manner while promoting openness, accessibility, equity, and reuse. The novelty of the proposed framework is its use of open educational resources (OER), open educational practices (OEP), as well as free and open-source software (FOSS) tools and platforms. Its cloud-based infrastructure and open licenses support viable operationalization strategies that can be implemented by educational institutions and governments.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.391

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0130.016
Open science0.0060.011
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1170.053

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.531
Teacher spread0.393 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed LearningSame topicOnline Learning and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207