Pedagogical Approaches used in the Co-Creation of Academic Tools at the Musée acadien de l’Université de Moncton (MAUM)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the results of a collaborative study highlighting the pedagogical approaches used by faculty during visits to the Musée acadien de l'Université de Moncton (MAUM). This qualitative-based study was conducted with a sample of nine participants representing various disciplines from three major faculties. Thematic analysis revealed the main themes related to the pedagogical practices used by the participants: teaching and learning models, pedagogical approaches, and methods. The results indicate that the faculty preferred collaborative, project-based, experiential, and inter- and trans-disciplinary approaches. This study initiated discussions among professors about teaching practices used by faculty members during distance learning. Innovative thoughts have emerged from e-learning practices used by faculty during the Covid-19 pandemic. Feedback from students contributed greatly to enriching and evolving the approaches. The cross-referencing of the results has made it possible to identify tools for inspiring pedagogical approaches, whatever the subject being taught.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".