A Classroom of One Is a Community of Learners: Paradox, Artistic Pedagogical Technologies, and the Invitational Online Classroom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, convocation ceremonies were held at a large online university in Western Canada. For most in attendance it was the first time that students met face-to-face with their instructors and classmates. In her address, the valedictorian spoke of the challenges and benefits of attending an online university. She noted that she completed her Master's degree in a classroom of one sitting in solitude in front of a computer screen course after course. Yet in her address she noted that she had experienced a sense of connection with fellow students and teachers during her classes. She noted that enhanced connectedness was made possible because of more intimate knowledge of other students' values, life priorities, and belief. The valedictorian described her experience as being part of a community of learners. This valedictorian's seemingly paradoxical experience of being in a classroom of one, and yet sensing she was also part of a community of learners, is not always the norm for online students (Paxton, 2003). Online learners may feel isolated and alone and find the experiences of virtuality unreal and unsatisfying (Huang, 2002; Paxton, 2003; Splitter, 2009). Further, online learners may experience feelings of disconnect and a sense of being lost in cyberspace (Andone, Dron, Boyne & Pemberton, 2006; Paxton, 2003). Developing online curricula that encourages social presence are key to enhancing teacher and student online relationships and reducing social isolation (Garrison, 2007). One approach to reducing social isolation is creating invitational classrooms that lead to participants experiencing the social presence of other students and the teacher (Paxton, 2003). The purpose of this paper is to explore how the use of APTs (Perry & Edwards, 2010), particularly PV a teaching strategy, assist in creating invitational online classrooms. The underpinnings of Invitational Theory and Practice (ITP) are reviewed and the characteristics of invitational classrooms are delineated (Purkey & Novak, 2008; Shaw & Siegel, 2010). An examination of the use of paradox in understanding PV spaces as invitational places/spaces is undertaken. Further, Palmer's (2007) six paradoxes of pedagogical design are applied as a framework to explore PV and broaden the understanding of invitation within the context of APT's. Invitational Theory Foundations ITP is based on five elements of human interaction, trust, respect, optimism, care, and intentionality (Purkey & Novak, 2008; Shaw & Siegel, 2010). When all five elements are present in an educative environment, these elements serve to invite, nurture, and support learners in realizing successful outcomes (Riner, 2003). By accepting invitations to develop their abilities, learners are empowered to reach their highest potential and educative environments become cooperative and collaborative in nature (Riner, 2003). According to invitational theory, respect suggests that all humans possess ability, are valuable, and demonstrate responsibility (Steyn, 2006). Trust means that all education is bound within collaborative and cooperative activities, while optimism is the belief that humans possess unlimited latent and overt potential (Steyn, 2006). This potential is realized [when] people, places, policies, processes and programs are [intentionally] designed to invite [that] development (p. 21). Characteristics of the Invitational Classroom Considerable research has been done in the last two decades related to invitationalism and delineating the characteristics of invitational classrooms (Chant, Moes & Ross, 2009; Hunter & Smith, 2007; Paxton, 2003; Purkey, 1992; Steyn, 2006; Steyn, 2009; Usher & Pajares, 2006). Although invitational research has primarily focused on face-to-face classrooms, research in the context of the online classroom is beginning to emerge (Perry & Edwards, 2011; Perry, Menzies, Janzen & Edwards, in press). …
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".