MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Contradictions between the virtual and physical high school classroom: A third‐generation Activity Theory perspective

2007· article· en· W2037423551 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Educational Technology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovative Education and Learning Practices
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)WorkloadActivity theoryPhysical activityMathematics educationPedagogyPsychologyClassroom managementSociologyComputer scienceMultimedia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper uses a third‐generation Activity Theory perspective to gain insight into the contradictions between the activity systems of the physical and virtual high school classroom from the perspective of teachers who had transitioned from one system to the other. Data collection relied on semi‐structured interviews conducted with e‐teachers as well as management/support personnel of an organisation charged with delivering web‐based high school courses in the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Contradictions related to time and workload, physical presence, interaction and rapport building, and use of direct messaging and email. The contradictions can be explained by a difference between the mediating tools in each activity system. The absence in the virtual classroom of body language and visual presence as mediators requires e‐teachers to find new ways of interacting and building rapport and necessitates a shift from a practice of controlling to engaging students’ attention.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.663
Threshold uncertainty score0.836

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.347 · 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