The Untapped Learning Potential of CMC in Higher Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We argue for programs that support academics to develop an understanding of the relationship between technology and pedagogy. To lay the groundwork, we document how nine instructors (in biology, education, English, general studies, geography, and kinesiology) at two universities integrated a computer conferencing tool into their course design and how their students reported actually using the tool. Among our findings was that most instructors intended students to use computer conferencing for learning of course content and to meet this goal three types of interactions were written into the course design: unidirectional, bidirectional, and co-constructive online interactions. The data was further considered from the perspective of Van Aalst’s framework (2006), which provides a way to build a “communal online learning resource in terms of three notions: collaboration, learning how to learn and idea improvement” (p. 279). Implications are drawn for working with faculty to design online instruction.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".