Cooperation and Collaboration in Higher Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study illustrates different practices of knowledge co-construction by exploring argumentation processes from its (1) cognitive, (2) affective, and (3) moral dimensions (respect), and by clarifying the meaning of cooperation and collaboration, terms that are commonly used as synonyms. The authors adopted a critical constructivist approach consistent with the cognitive and moral works of Habermas (1987) and Piaget (1977, 1932/2000), and refined a method of online argumentation analysis (Campos, 2004) to better understand knowledge co-construction in the context of electronic conferencing in university courses. Their data analysis focused on the form as well as on the content of online argumentation. Results concerning the cognitive dimension of online discourse confirmed previous studies. However, regarding the affective and moral (respect) dimensions of online discourse, results were less clear. The authors highlight that the technology, the course design, and the instructor’s actions are equally important to successfully achieve set goals in online learning communities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".