THE UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA EMPOWERING LEARNERS: STRATEGIES FOR FOSTERING SELF- DIRECTED LEARNING AND IMPLICATIONS FOR ONLINE LEARNING BY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I would like to share with you the true story of a man who was a duck carver (Berger, 1990). During an interview for a study on self-directed learning, the duck carver revealed that he considered himself a non-reader and not a good learner. When asked how he had identified the means to teaching himself this art, he recalled that when attending duck carving shows he made every effort to talk to other carvers. He also read every book on the subject he could find, in spite of considering himself a non-reader. He even raised ducks, in order to be able to observe live models. Reflecting on his learning experience, he realized that he had, in fact, learned well and consequently viewed himself more as a learner than before. Through interaction with people, print resources, and his own experience in raising ducks, significant learning resulted. Given the motivation, he had been able to devise strategies to find out what he needed to know. In taking the initiative and responsibility to achieve his goals, the duck carver demonstrated how he could direct his own learning. What is key for learners is to know how to learn and to take personal initiative in directing one’s learning.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".