MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W745764764

Defining Varied Learning Environments: An International DKG Perspective

2015· article· en· W745764764 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Margaret Trybus

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œDelta Kappa Gamma bulletin · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Theme (computing)Public relationsSociologyPedagogyPolitical sciencePsychologyGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article continues a series initiated by members of the Bulletin's Editorial Board. The goal of the series is to feature interviews conducted with Delta Kappa Gamma members or other educational leaders on a topic related to the theme of the issue. Here, board member Trybus presents the results of a unique approach to such an interview by reporting comments made by international state organization presidents and leaders in response to a survey seeking their perspectives on learning in their countries.In considering whom to interview for this issue of the Bulletin on the theme Varied Learning Environments, I quickly focused on the importance of context, wondering what this topic might mean to educators in different countries. The resources seemed quite evident, because The Delta Kappa Gamma Society International has a global network of state organizations worldwide. Beyond the United States, countries include Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Great Britain, Iceland, Japan, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Puebla, San Luis Potosi, Costa Rica, El Salvador, and Nuevo Leon. My belief was that, although the settings might be diverse, the changing roles and competencies of teachers working in the context of varied learning environments constitute a shared constant throughout our global educational systems. Accordingly, the more that members can find opportunities to learn from each other in different settings, the more innovative we, as educators, can be in creating learning that are successful.Today's students are complex, exhibiting wide-ranging needs from content knowledge in traditional subjects to acquisition of twenty-first-century skills. In order to meet these needs, learning need to be fluid, innovative, and changing. Educators can no longer accept the premise that a one size fits teaching and learning environment will be sufficient to prepare students in schools around the world. The majority of learning have been traditional face-to-face classrooms; however, the movement to online learning is growing in the educational community at all levels. With this shift comes an increased need to support teachers to expand their competencies in planning and designing curriculum, providing instruction, communicating through different modalities, and finding diverse ways to engage students in all types of environments.Looking for an international perspective on these issues and the overall concept of learning environments, I created and sent a survey to state organization presidents and leaders outside of the United States. Ten questions were designed to elicit participants' responses to (a) identify problems in schools that affect student learning; (b) determine teaching methods that define the learning environment; (c) indicate the use of technology in the classroom; and (d) determine factors that influence learning environments. Responses from 10 participants (41% return rate) are provided verbatim and present an interesting perspective on these topics.What are the most difficult problems schools in your country face to help students learn?* Class sizes are big and make it difficult to help the individual student. Not enough classrooms.* Students' ability levels are mixed, including students with disabilities in regular classes.* Multicultural issues and the mental health needs of our students.* Building a bridge between school and home. Teachers are often overstretched to meet students' needs. Students miss classes and refuse help.* School laws keep changing every few years, and not enough money to buy technology.* Infrastructure in rural areas differs from urban areas.* Majority of teachers don't know how to use technology, and at the same time students are overusing technology and losing the ability to speak face-to-face, use a calculator, and write. …

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.877
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.281 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œDelta Kappa Gamma bulletinSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207