Increasing the Authenticity of Group Assignments in an Online Research Course may Lead to Higher Academic Achievement
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A Review of:
 Finch, J. L., & Jefferson, R. N. (2013). Designing authentic learning tasks for online library instruction. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 39(2), 181-188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2012.10.005 
 
 Abstract
 
 Objective – To explore what impact assigning authentic tasks to students deliberately grouped by their majors in an online library research course has on student perceptions of teaching quality (teaching presence) and satisfaction. 
 
 Design – Empirical comparative study.
 
 Setting – Medium-size (10,500 full-time students) liberal arts college in the United States of America.
 
 Subjects – 33 undergraduate students enrolled in a library research course.
 
 Methods – The study focusses on two sections of a one-credit online library research course taught by library faculty. The 17 students in the Spring “express” section were randomly assigned to groups and asked to complete a group annotated bibliography project using MLA style (Class Random). The 16 students registered in the Summer section of the same course were grouped by their majors, and asked to complete a modified version of the annotated bibliography group project in which they were asked to identify and then utilize the citation style most appropriate for their discipline (Class Deliberate). Students in Class Deliberate also received instruction around the role of subject specific citation styles in scholarly communication. Both sections completed a final assignment in which they developed a portal of resources to support their future studies or careers. All 33 students in both sections were invited to complete a modified online version of the Community of Inquiry (COI) survey consisting of 16 questions relating to student perceptions of the course’s teaching and cognitive presences. Questions relating to social presence were not administered. The final grades awarded to all students in both sections were also analyzed.
 
 Main Results – A total of 59% of the students in Class Random (10/17) and 67% of the students in Class Deliberate (11/16) completed the online survey. There were no statistically significant differences in the survey responses between the two sections with both groups of students rating the instructor’s teaching presence and the course’s cognitive presence highly. Only 40% of the respondents from Class Random and 46% from Class Deliberate agreed that working with peers facilitated their learning. The mean final grade received by students in Class Deliberate was 95.27 versus 86.15 in Class Random, a statistically significant difference (p
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,017 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,036 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».