MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394818466 · doi:10.5539/jel.v13n4p96

Development of a Scale of Skills in Teaching Work and Innovation in University Education

2024· article· en· W4394818466 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Luís Felipe Dias Lopes, Fabiane Volpato Chiapinoto, Martiele Gonçalves Moreira, Nuvea Kuhn, Fillipe Grando Lopes, Luciana Davi Traverso, Deoclécio Júnior Cardoso da Silva, Gilnei Luiz de Moura

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital literacy in education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do SulConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsScale (ratio)PsychologyDelphi methodFluencyCreativitySample (material)Higher educationMathematics educationFace validitySet (abstract data type)PedagogyMedical educationPsychometricsComputer scienceSocial psychologyClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to validate a scale for subjectively measuring teaching competencies for innovation in higher education. The scale was developed by creating a set of items that underwent content validity through the Delphi technique and face validity. A survey was then conducted with 523 higher education professors. The resulting scale, called the STW-ICE Scale, consists of four dimensions: continuing education, creativity, digital fluency, and scientificity. We found that the scale has psychometric properties that allow for subjective measurement of the proposed competencies. The SmartPLS and SPSS software were used for data assessment. Additionally, we found high levels of teaching skills in the sample for all dimensions. Based on these findings, this study successfully achieved its goal of developing and validating a scale. We hope that this scale will be used not only for classificatory diagnoses but also to encourage reflection on teaching practices in higher education with a focus on innovation.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.870
Threshold uncertainty score0.161

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicDigital literacy in educationFrench-language works237,207