MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118337352 · doi:10.5172/ijpl.5.3.20

Promoting and Supporting Authentic Online Conversations – Which Comes First – The Tools or Instructional Design?

2009· article· en· W2118337352 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Pedagogies and Learning · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsConestoga College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFacilitatorInstructional designContext (archaeology)ConversationLearning environmentLearning designComputer scienceKnowledge managementKey (lock)PedagogyMathematics educationEngineeringMultimediaPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are elements of instructional design which are fundamental to a higher education constructivist learning environment. These elements, embedded in a well-designed learning environment are necessary to promote academic discourse. The presence of communication tools alone in an online environment does not assure collaboration and construction of new knowledge. The skill of the facilitator is integral to achieving successful outcomes. This paper describes instructional design strategies which play a key role in promoting and supporting conversation which results in higher order thinking in the context of a pedagogical event conducted as a requirement of a Masters course.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.833
Threshold uncertainty score0.393

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.320 · 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