MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009074702 · doi:10.1080/09523980500161221

Dynamic online discussion: task‐oriented interaction for deep learning

2005· article· en· W2009074702 on OpenAlexaff
Jianxia Du, Byron Havard, Heng Li

Bibliographic record

VenueEducational Media International · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLigneCollaborative learningOnline learningComputer sciencePeer learningOnline discussionPsychologyHumanitiesMathematics educationMultimediaWorld Wide WebArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A framework for deep learning for dynamic online discussion in distance education is illustrated in this paper. The foundation of the framework is based on three general processes: information, methods and cognition. A structure for dynamic discussions within the framework provides three types of online discussion; flexible peer, structured topic and collaborative task discussion. The framework was applied during two semesters of an online multimedia design for instruction in a graduate level course. The strategies for creating dynamic discussion serve to facilitate online interactions among diverse learners and assist in the design of assignments for effective interactions. Students build on the adoptive learning taking place through assignments designed to promote adaptive learning and challenge their cognitive abilities, resulting in deep learning. The proposed framework and the strategies for dynamic discussion provide an online learning environment in which students learn beyond the goal of the course. Les discussions dynamiques en ligne: l’interaction orientée vers la tâche pour un apprentissage en profondeur Cet article présente un cadre méthodologique pour l’apprentissage en profondeur dans les discussions dynamiques en ligne en éducation à distance. Les fondations de ce cadre reposent sur trois processus généraux: l’information , la méthode et la cognition. La structure des discussions dynamiques au sein de ce cadre fournit trois modèles de discussion en ligne: le modèle mutuel souple, le modèle à thème structuré, et le modèle « tâche collaborative ». Ce cadre a été appliqué pendant les deux semestres d’un cours en ligne de conception des multimedia pédagogiques au niveau avancé. Les stratégies de création de discussions dynamiques servent à faciliter les interactions en ligne entre des apprenants différents et aident à concevoir des exercices visant les interactions effectives. Les étudiants construisent sur l’apprentissage en train de se produire grâce à des tâches conçues pour favoriser l’appropriation de cet apprentissage et stimuler leurs capacités cognitives ce qui conduit à un apprentissage en profondeur. La cadre proposé et les stratégies pour la discussion dynamique offrent un environnement d’apprentissage en ligne dans lequel ce que les étudiants apprennent va bien au‐delà de l’objectif du cours. Dynamische online‐diskussion: aufgabenorientierte interaktion für “deep learning” In diesem Papier wird ein Raster für “Deep Learning” über Online Diskussion bei Fernstudien vorgestellt. Die Grundlegung dieses Rahmens basiert auf drei allgemeinen Prozessen: Information, Methode und Erkenntnis. Eine Struktur für Dynamische Diskussionen innerhalb dieses Rahmens unterstützen drei Typen von Online Diskussionen: flexible Kollegen, strukturierte Thematik und gemeinsame Aufgabendiskussion. Das Raster wurde zwei Semester lang bei einem Online Multimedia Lehrentwurf eines Kurses auf Graduiertenebene verwendet Die Vorgehensweisen zur Erzeugung “Dynamischer Diskussionen” dienen dazu, Online Interaktionen zwischen verschiedenen Lernern zu erleichtern und helfen im Entwurf von Zuordnungen für wirkungsvolle Interaktionen. Studenten bauen auf das anpassungsfähige Lernen, das durch Zuordnungen stattfindet, die entworfen wurden, das adaptive Lernen zu fördern und ihre kognitiven Fähigkeiten herausfordern, die in “Deep Learning” resultieren. Das vorgestellte Raster und die Strategie zum Erreichen dynamischen Diskutierens liefern eine Online‐Learning‐Umgebung, die die Studenten unabhängig vom angestrebten Kursziel lernen.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations55
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEducational Media InternationalSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207