Learning Design Family Tree to Back Reuse and Cooperation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The types of artefacts or solutions used towards the creation learning designs (Learning design Solutions, LdS) are diverse (patterns, course maps, activities, etc.) and have varied or multiple lives. Sometimes designs are created by an individual teacher for a single use with their students. But often, they are reused the following years or by other teachers with minor adaptations. Other times, designs are co-outlined by networks of teacher and later refined by each teacher for their particular group of students, or they are co-designed involving students. These scenarios can imply the creation of multiple replicas of the same design, which in turn may be duplicated and refined as new LdS. In this paper we state that supporting the management and visualization of interrelated LdS can back scenarios of cooperation and reuse in the context of design communities. In particular, we propose an LdS branching model visualized following a family-tree metaphor. We define a "learning designs’ family " as a collection of learning designs which weren't started from scratch but by replicating (or duplicating) a particular existing learning design. The model, and its visualization, has been implemented as a new feature in the LdShake teacher-community platform, as part of the Metis Integrated Learning Design Environment (ILDE). The development of the feature consists of two
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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.
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".