A 'uses and gratifications' approach to understanding the role of wiki technology in enhancing teaching and learning outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of the Wikis in both post-graduate and undergraduate teaching is rapidly increasing in popularity. Much of the research into the use of this technology has focused on the practical aspects of how the technology can be used and is yet to address why it is used, or in what way it enhances teaching and learning outcomes. A comparison of the key characteristics of the constructivist learning approach and Wikis suggests that Wikis could provide considerable support of this approach, however research into the motivations for using the technology is required so that good teaching practices may be applied to the use of Wikis when utilized in the higher education context. This study articulates a research design grounded in the Technology Mediated Learning (TML) paradigm that could be used to explore teachers and studentsâ motivations for using Wiki technology to enhance teaching and learning outcomes. Using the âUses and Gratificationâ approach, a popular technique used for understanding user motivation in technology adoption, a two-stage research design is set out. Finally, the paper concludes with a discussion of the implications for both information systems researchers and higher education.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".