MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964436982 · doi:10.2190/et.36.4.e

The Structure of Student Dialogue in Web-Assisted Mathematics Courses

2008· article· en· W1964436982 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Educational Technology Systems · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationAsynchronous communicationClass (philosophy)Elementary mathematicsComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spring term of 2005, three Web-assisted undergraduate mathematics courses were taught at the University of Idaho: Math 235 Mathematics for Elementary Teachers 1; Math 236 Mathematics for Elementary Teachers II; and Math 391 Modern Geometry. While the content of these courses differ, they share common goals: to foster a deep understanding of critical mathematical content; to train students in the use of computer-based modeling and analysis technologies; and to promote the development of mathematical communication and collaboration concepts, skills, and dispositions. Outside of regular class periods, students participated in an ongoing asynchronous mathematical dialogue using the Idaho Virtual Campus Discussion Tool. The structure of this dialogue was analyzed using graph theoretic methods associated with social network analysis. These findings were compared to student achievement data and the results used to answer the question, “In Web-assisted undergraduate mathematics courses, how is the structure of asynchronous communication related to student achievement?”

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.299
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.356 · 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