The Creation of Virtual and Face-to-Face Learning Communities: An International Collaboration Experience
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 article examines the use of technology in higher education to support an international collaboration between 2 graduate seminars in cognition and instruction, one in Mexico and another in Canada. The culture of both seminars is described in the context of using computer mediated collaboration systems. The online collaboration between and within the 2 groups happened through the use of the communications tools available in WebCT, a Web-based course management system. The analyses reveal the discursive patterns between instructors and students in both settings, with an examination of teacher presence as it pertains to a cognitive apprenticeship perspective, with particular attention to teacher's modeling and scaffolding. We also present the nature of the student interactions in terms of the cognitive elements present in the discourse and the types of social interactions that support the community of inquiry model. Students in both seminars revealed high levels of critical thinking in the types of discussions they engaged in and the types of questions they posed to others. Differences were noted in the types of teacher modeling in the 2 seminars. These differences are explored and future directions are stated for promoting international collaborations in 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.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it