What Are They Doing and How Are They Doing It? Rural Student Experiences in Virtual Schooling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the nature of virtual schooling in Newfoundland and Labrador secondary education. The primary goals of this research were to investigate the virtual school learning experience for students in the Centre for Distance Learning and Innovation (CDLI) including the kinds of support and assistance most frequently used and most valued by students learning in a virtual environment. Data were collected related to what students did during their asynchronous class and synchronous class time, along with where they sought help when they needed content-based assistance. Students were interviewed and observed during their virtual school class time. In-school teachers were interviewed and e-teachers were also observed. Data were analyzed using the constant comparative method utilizing Microsoft Word ® as a tool for qualitative data analysis. Findings indicated that during their asynchronous class time students were often assigned seat work or provided time to work on assignments, however, students rarely used this time to complete CDLI work. When the students required assistance they usually relied upon their local classmates. If peer support was not successful, they turned to their e-teacher if it was during synchronous class time or if they had the time to wait for a response. If it was during asynchronous class time or if they needed more immediate feedback, they would seek out their in-school teachers. Students rarely used most of the support resources provided by the CDLI. Further research is needed to improve asynchronous teaching strategies exhibited, to better understand the virtual school experience of lower performing students, to improve upon the identification of students who will be successful in and provide remediation for students who are weak in certain characteristics, and finally to investigate how e-teachers and in-school teachers encourage greater interaction and sense of community to allow students to learn in the social process from their more capable peers. As the goals of this future research are to impact the practice of virtual schooling, design/development research may be a suitable methodology for these future studies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".