Where’s the fun in that? Building an authentic, inclusive, serious-yet-playful learning development framework
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
At the University of the West of Scotland, one of the ways in which first year students engage in exploring academic, personal, and professional literacies is through an embedded and contextualised credit-bearing module that runs alongside subject specific study. The module offers students opportunities to explore aspects of identity, values, and motivations as part of long, thin, scaffolded engagement running over two terms, and provides a mutable space for student-led discussion on a breadth of aspects of longitudinal transition support, becoming, as well, a space to engage with learning development principles and practices. In so doing, learning experiences within the module are at once guided and exploratory, presenting a risky safe space (Boyd, Wilson and Smith, 2023) for students to use in their transition towards increased autonomy and confidence. This session considered how the flexibility of the learning and teaching spaces created in the module (physical and virtual) allows for both reinforcement of formal structures/ requirements such as assessment processes (the serious part) as well as the freedom to negotiate personalised, aspirational, agentic, experimental learning experiences (more playfully intended). The session shared examples of classroom activities and presented learner feedback. Delegates were invited to share reflection on their own experiences of designing and delivering similar experiences and contribute to a fuller understanding of the value of maintaining balance within the serious-play spectrum.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it