MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1598503692 · doi:10.19173/irrodl.v3i2.112

The eClassroom used as a Teacher's Training Laboratory to Measure the Impact of Group Facilitation on Attending, Participation, Interaction, and Involvement.

2002· article· en· W1598503692 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Mia Lobel, Randy Swedburg, M. Neubauer

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicTeam Dynamics and Performance
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFacilitationInterpersonal communicationPsychologySocial facilitationExperiential learningInterpersonal relationshipComputer-mediated communicationInterpersonal interactionClass (philosophy)Social psychologyMathematics educationPedagogyApplied psychologyMedical educationComputer scienceThe InternetWorld Wide WebArtificial intelligenceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<P class=abstract>This paper describes and quantifies the role of group facilitation in an experiential, real-time, online, university level credit course entitled eAHSC/230 Interpersonal Communications and Relations. A new and unique group interaction pattern called parallel communication, as well as classical elements of group interaction are described and quantified. New measures of online group facilitation attributes with analogous face-to-face (F2F) counterparts are presented. Specifically, the impact of effective group facilitation on Attentiveness, on Interaction, on Involvement, and on Participation is explored. The paper also examines the eClassrom’s potential effectiveness as a real time teaching and training laboratory which also functions as a process observation tool that collects and feeds back interaction data, providing teachers and trainers immediate and ongoing measures of facilitation effectiveness.</P>

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.297
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.188
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed LearningSame topicTeam Dynamics and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207