Online Learning Journals as an Instructional and Self-Assessment Tool for Epistemological Growth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study looked at the instructional and assessment effects of using learning journals in three distance asynchronous computer conferencing courses (n=18, n=16, n=17). The instructor used a design-research methodology: each iteration of the course involved modifications to how learning journals were used based on analyses of the responses and results from the preceding course. Modifications included: a) use of orienting questions; b) question content, c) journal assessment and d) amount of scaffolding. Protocols were analyzed with a view to characterizing students’ epistemic cognition from two perspectives: belief mode (rationalist epistemology, self analysis, norms of inquiry to defend competing beliefs) and design mode (knowledge building epistemology, collective responsibility, norms of inquiry to support idea improvement and explanatory coherence). Changes in metacognitive reflection and learning journal activity were related to measures of learning. As a pedagogical tool, learning journals with directed questions (scaffolding) encouraged self-awareness of learning and epistemological reflection. Résumé : La présente étude a examiné les effets de l’utilisation de journaux d’apprentissage sur l’enseignement et l’évaluation dans trois cours à distance asynchrones en téléconférence assistée par ordinateur (n = 18, n = 16, n = 17). L’instructeur a utilisé une méthodologie de recherche-conception : à chaque prestation du cours, des modifications étaient apportées à la manière dont les journaux d’apprentissage étaient utilisés en se basant sur l’analyse des réponses et les résultats obtenus lors de la prestation précédente. Les modifications concernaient : a) l’utilisation de questions d’orientation; b) le contenu des questions; c) l’évaluation du journal; d) la quantité d’échafaudage. Les protocoles ont été analysés de manière à caractériser la cognition épistémique des étudiants à partir de deux points de vue : le mode « croyance » (épistémologie rationaliste, autoanalyse, normes d’enquête pour défendre les croyances concurrentes) et le mode « conception » (épistémologie de coélaboration des connaissances, responsabilité collective, normes d’enquête pour appuyer l’amélioration des idées et la cohérence explicative). Les changements dans la réflexion métacognitive et l’activité des journaux d’apprentissage étaient liés à des mesures de l’apprentissage. En tant qu’outil pédagogique, les journaux d’apprentissage avec questions dirigées (échafaudage) encouragent la prise de conscience de l’apprentissage et la réflexion épistémologique.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 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".