Learning with Web 2.0: Social Technology and Discursive Psychology
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
Recent years have seen the rise of Internet technologies which facilitate activities that are, above all, social and participatory, allowing children and adults to create and share their own content, and to communicate in a wide range of forums. Correspondingly, there has been great popular and expert interest in the potential of Web 2.0 communication technologies for education. The discursive ‘spaces' enabled by Web 2.0 differ from conventional face-to-face and online educational environments in that communication largely occurs in the written form, and is informal and abbreviated. To understand the potential of these new ‘conversational’ communicative practices and technologies for formal education calls for a new research approach: one that focuses on learning through text-based, informal communication. Such a research approach has been proposed by discursive psychology, a social psychological paradigm that emerged in the 1990s which combines the insights of phenomenology, ethnomethodology and conversational analysis. The concern of this approach and of its theoretical precursors with ‘sense-making’ has been observed by educational technologists to make it clearly suitable to a study of instructional practice. This article provides an account of this discursive approach in terms of its relevance to education and applicability for new technologies. With these two key factors in mind, the article suggests how discursive psychology can be adapted in the study of Web 2.0 technologies in educational contexts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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