MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058876712 · doi:10.5539/ass.v8n14p81

Keeping it Social: Engaging Students Online and in Class

2012· article· en· W2058876712 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jennifer J. Peck

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMacquarie University
KeywordsImmediacyOnline participationSocial mediaPsychologyImpromptuCitizen journalismSpace (punctuation)Online communityClass (philosophy)Face-to-faceParticipatory cultureOnline chatSociologyPublic relationsMathematics educationThe InternetComputer scienceWorld Wide WebPolitical scienceMedia studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New technologies expand the horizons of education, offering opportunities to explore practices based on collaboration and community rather than the individual teacher or learner. A social networking site was implemented in a university unit with the aim of progressing online participatory culture and increasing student engagement both online and in face-to-face classes. The challenge of engaging students and converting lurkers and stalkers into talkers is discussed.Analysis of linguistic features of blog and forum posts was undertaken and the findings were used to modify online instructor behaviour and presence, and to encourage student participation. The research found that posts with high response rates had short topic titles, used directives and lexical items suggesting immediacy: “Newest hottest topic”, while modalization and requests for help produced low or zero responses. Controversial topics received most responses. Gender was found to be a relevant factor, with blogs posted by males gaining higher response rates than those posted by females. The online site produced discursive shifts in “real life” interactions, and provided a speaking-space for quiet students. Students’ initial cynicism towards the site changed, and online social networking cultivated affinity groups and increased student participation in both online and face-to-face 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.285
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.360 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations21
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicImpact of Technology on AdolescentsFrench-language works237,207