COLLABORATION IN FACE TO FACE VERSUS ON-LINE TEACHING
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In Canada, the perspective changed from working independently to collaborating in education. In industry, teams that work collaboratively often access greater resources, recognition and rewards when facing competition for finite resources. The reported study deals with preparing future teachers to implement collaboration while they are learning about it themselves based on theoretical tenets and practical applications. Activities devised were of a three tier action-oriented nature requiring task completion, and based on the backdrop of collaboration, similar to cooperation but taking it to a higher level with active participation of all the members. In this case, we explored a collaborative annotated vocabulary task, including drawing pictures and contributing names and expressions in writing where relevant. Collaboration requires awareness, motivation, self-synchronization, participation, mediation, reciprocity, reflection and engagement, then the question of how to increase collaboration among student participants required serious pondering when having to deliver this, through on-line courses, especially given that some learners have only basic access to technological means. So, instructors had to bridge the gaps both theoretically and practically. The methodology was qualitative (Creswell & Poth, 2018), using interaction analysis (Gardner, 2019). We also looked at affinity spaces (Gee, 2005) and communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). The basic question examined was, how is collaboration achieved with this group of university students? After explaining underlying theoretical concepts and grouping students, a second language collaborative task was designed around vocabulary building and learning useful associated expressions. Observational and procedural notes were taken during the process, while the instructor devised a collaborative activity going through the stages of group building, seeking resources, building-in reinforcement stages and during the actual collaboration through break-up rooms of selected participants during on-line work and use of the chat feature as well as page share applications. We observed and analyzed group activity. Among key findings we uncovered the sharing of work-spaces, however if obvious during in-class teaching, break-up rooms did not provide full scope. Students found it difficult to give up control to other people. They did not like being vulnerable, thankfully no grade was attached to the completed task. They found out when it hurt to give in and when to back down. Another issue was the inherent messiness of collaboration. There was also an issue when students lacked self-regulation (Bandura, 1997) and tended to complain about inclusion. Overall great ideas were generated although through some tension; this made participants take more notice and it hopefully added to their learning. Other findings will be discussed including the messiness of collaboration.
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.
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 | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| 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 | 0,000 |
| 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 | 0,001 |
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 découle