MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410120018 · doi:10.22329/jtl.v19i2.9784

Technology, Differentiated Instruction, & Teaching 21st-Century Skills

2025· article· en· W4410120018 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Clayton Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Teaching and Learning · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Practices and Evaluation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationDifferentiated instructionTeaching methodComputer sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this issue, we focus on technology, differentiated instruction, and teaching 21st-century skills. We begin with two technology-related articles, one that investigates the effect of virtual reality teaching and the interaction effect of gender and teaching methods on university students’ academic performance, and another that explores teachers’ perspectives on using ICT-based learning resources in schools. Then, we present two differentiated instruction articles, including one that synthesizes and analyzes the empirical evidence related to the effectiveness of differentiated instruction in diverse educational contexts, and another that explores specialized undergraduate programs for autistic college students and how faculty members who teach autistic students approach and promote self-advocacy. We then share three articles on the teaching of 21st-century skills, including one that demonstrates efficacy in enhancing students’ problem-solving abilities and self-efficacy in STEM fields, one that illustrates the impact of the autonomous learning approach on learners and assesses their ability to sustain the learning process, and one that describes the experiences at four different Australian universities to showcase some of the innovative approaches taken to embed workforce-integrated learning in accounting education. Five additional articles are presented on educational globalization, pedagogical research competence, ecological literacy, and the teaching of idioms. This issue concludes with one dialogue and commentary paper, and a book review.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.350 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Teaching and LearningSame topicEducation Practices and EvaluationFrench-language works237,207