Searching for and positioning of contextualized learning objects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Learning object economies are marketplaces for the sharing and reuse of learning objects (LO). There are many motivations for stimulating the development of the LO economy. The main reason is the possibility of providing the right content, at the right time, to the right learner according to adequate quality standards in the context of a lifelong learning process; in fact, this is also the main objective of education. However, some barriers to the development of a LO economy, such as the granularity and editability of LO, must be overcome. Furthermore, some enablers, such as learning design generation and standards usage, must be promoted in order to enhance LO economy. For this article, we introduced the integration of distributed learning object repositories (DLOR) as sources of LO that could be placed in adaptive learning designs to assist teachers' design work. Two main issues presented as a result: how to access distributed LO, and where to place the LO in the learning design. To address these issues, we introduced two processes: LORSE, a distributed LO searching process, and LOOK, a micro context-based positioning process, respectively. Using these processes, the teachers were able to reuse LO from different sources to semi-automatically generate an adaptive learning design without leaving their virtual environment. A layered evaluation yielded good results for the process of placing learning objects from controlled learning object repositories into a learning design, and permitting educators to define different open issues that must be covered when they use uncontrolled learning object repositories for this purpose. We verified the satisfaction users had with our solution.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".