Making In-Roads Toward Multi-Access Learning and Teaching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While multi-access learning can support more flexible, accessible, and equitable learning, the time and effort required of educators can serve as a barrier to adoption, particularly for those already fatigued by emergency shifts to remote teaching during the pandemic. Drawing on our own experiences as educators, we propose three practical ways to approach and gain confidence in multi-access learning: (a) contingency pathway, where multi-access is available in limited ways as a supplement in-person instruction; (b) event pathway, where multi-access is adopted for select classes rather than the full course; and (c) three-layer course design pathway scaffolding the conceptualization of multi-access in a full course. For each pathway, we discuss benefits and limitations and key considerations for the learning experience.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.035 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.028 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".