Educators’ understandings of digital classroom tools and datafication: perceptions from higher education faculty
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has shown that critical data literacies development for educators is seldom a core component of most campus conversations about datafication, even as extractive, datafied systems become pervasive throughout the higher education sector. This article outlines findings from an international, qualitative, Comparative Case Study (CCS) of university professionals teaching online during the COVID-19 pandemic. It overviews beliefs and barriers shaping educators’ responses to datafication and focuses specifically on their perceptions of faculty development opportunities related to digital classroom tools and to datafication more broadly. The article presents insights into how faculty understands higher education’s contemporary datafied infrastructure and highlights participants’ voices about faculty professional development and critical data literacies. Based on our findings, we recommend formal faculty development and broader professional learning conversations as a means of enhancing faculty awareness and agency within the higher education sector.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it