The Impact of a Collaborative Wiki Assignment on Teaching and Learning in a Teacher Education Program
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored students’ perceptions and behaviors of public wiki use during a collaborative Wikipedia assignment in a graduate technology and literacy education course. Results confirmed that the majority of students had an overall positive experience posting content on Wikipedia. Students learned how to use Wikipedia through collaborative practice, including, how to adhere to its standards and cite work properly, the importance of critically evaluating online information, and the value of publishing work to an authentic audience. Students (prospective and current teachers) reported numerous ways in which collaboration on Wikipedia could be integrated into their K-12 classrooms in order to promote higher order thinking and foster meaningful knowledge construction. Pedagogical practices for the effective integration of public wiki assignments in higher education and K-12 settings are recommended.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it