MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6903813424 · doi:10.13140/rg.2.2.20409.67684

Working Conditions for K-12 Distance & Online Learning Teachers in Canada

2017· article· en· W6903813424 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueTouro Scholar (Touro College) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicOcular Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOnline learningDistance educationWork (physics)Electronic learningOnline assessmentEducational technology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

“Teacher unions in Canada have had concerns about developments in online learning, but have generally been supportive if they have felt conditions were appropriate,” according to the Director of Research and Technology at the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation (BCTF). This sentiment has been echoed by the researchers involved in the annual State of the Nation: K- 12 E-Learning in Canada. These researchers have also underscored the fact that teacher unions have also been active in conducting research to investigate how teaching in the distance education and online learning environment is different than teaching in the classroom, and what impact that has on the nature of work and quality of work life for its members. The present study is an example of this exploration.\nThis report describes a study conducted to explore written provisions for the working conditions of K-12 distributed learning teachers in Canada (i.e., distance education and online learning are generally referred to as distributed learning throughout the report). At present, there is one provincial jurisdiction that includes language in their collective agreement with teachers related to distributed learning. There are also two provinces where there is language in one or more local contracts focused on distributed learning. Finally, there was one province where the provincial teacher union had a significant policy related to distributed learning.\nWithin these documents, there were consistent themes around 1) defining distributed learning; 2) clauses focused on teacher working conditions in the distributed learning environment; 3) responsibilities for the schools and/or school boards that choose to operate distributed learning programs; and 4) mechanisms to allow for consultations between those operating the distributed learning program and the union. In all of these themes, there are actually few regulations that go beyond what would be expected for traditional brick-and-mortar education. The main areas where distributed learning teachers were treated differently than face-to-face teachers were for legal reasons, as well as the provision for consultations between distributed learning operators and their respective unions. These unique aspects are reflective of stakeholders’ efforts to examine what constitutes the equivalent experiences for teaching in the distributed learning environment relative to traditional classroom teaching.

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)0.000
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 score0.827
Threshold uncertainty score0.955

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.258 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTouro Scholar (Touro College)Same topicOcular Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207