A Classroom of One Is a Community of Learners: Paradox, Artistic Pedagogical Technologies, and the Invitational Online Classroom
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Recently, convocation ceremonies were held at a large online university in Western Canada. For most in attendance it was the first time that students met face-to-face with their instructors and classmates. In her address, the valedictorian spoke of the challenges and benefits of attending an online university. She noted that she completed her Master's degree in a classroom of one sitting in solitude in front of a computer screen course after course. Yet in her address she noted that she had experienced a sense of connection with fellow students and teachers during her classes. She noted that enhanced connectedness was made possible because of more intimate knowledge of other students' values, life priorities, and belief. The valedictorian described her experience as being part of a community of learners. This valedictorian's seemingly paradoxical experience of being in a classroom of one, and yet sensing she was also part of a community of learners, is not always the norm for online students (Paxton, 2003). Online learners may feel isolated and alone and find the experiences of virtuality unreal and unsatisfying (Huang, 2002; Paxton, 2003; Splitter, 2009). Further, online learners may experience feelings of disconnect and a sense of being lost in cyberspace (Andone, Dron, Boyne & Pemberton, 2006; Paxton, 2003). Developing online curricula that encourages social presence are key to enhancing teacher and student online relationships and reducing social isolation (Garrison, 2007). One approach to reducing social isolation is creating invitational classrooms that lead to participants experiencing the social presence of other students and the teacher (Paxton, 2003). The purpose of this paper is to explore how the use of APTs (Perry & Edwards, 2010), particularly PV a teaching strategy, assist in creating invitational online classrooms. The underpinnings of Invitational Theory and Practice (ITP) are reviewed and the characteristics of invitational classrooms are delineated (Purkey & Novak, 2008; Shaw & Siegel, 2010). An examination of the use of paradox in understanding PV spaces as invitational places/spaces is undertaken. Further, Palmer's (2007) six paradoxes of pedagogical design are applied as a framework to explore PV and broaden the understanding of invitation within the context of APT's. Invitational Theory Foundations ITP is based on five elements of human interaction, trust, respect, optimism, care, and intentionality (Purkey & Novak, 2008; Shaw & Siegel, 2010). When all five elements are present in an educative environment, these elements serve to invite, nurture, and support learners in realizing successful outcomes (Riner, 2003). By accepting invitations to develop their abilities, learners are empowered to reach their highest potential and educative environments become cooperative and collaborative in nature (Riner, 2003). According to invitational theory, respect suggests that all humans possess ability, are valuable, and demonstrate responsibility (Steyn, 2006). Trust means that all education is bound within collaborative and cooperative activities, while optimism is the belief that humans possess unlimited latent and overt potential (Steyn, 2006). This potential is realized [when] people, places, policies, processes and programs are [intentionally] designed to invite [that] development (p. 21). Characteristics of the Invitational Classroom Considerable research has been done in the last two decades related to invitationalism and delineating the characteristics of invitational classrooms (Chant, Moes & Ross, 2009; Hunter & Smith, 2007; Paxton, 2003; Purkey, 1992; Steyn, 2006; Steyn, 2009; Usher & Pajares, 2006). Although invitational research has primarily focused on face-to-face classrooms, research in the context of the online classroom is beginning to emerge (Perry & Edwards, 2011; Perry, Menzies, Janzen & Edwards, in press). …
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,014 | 0,031 |
| Communication savante | 0,017 | 0,015 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,015 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».