Teacher Education and Technology: Strengths and Weaknesses of Two Communication Tools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two primary types of electronic communication tools are used in teacher education programs: synchronous and asynchronous. Each has its key strengths and weaknesses and has been docu-mented as appropriate for a different set of circumstances. Synchronous interaction involves the parties (learners, or learner and instructor) being online at the same time and communicating in real-time whereas asynchronous interaction involves the parties communicating over elapsed time. Few studies have focused on the advantages and disadvantages of various types of asyn-chronous communication tools, namely forums and electronic discussion groups. Our results show that the electronic discussion group appears to bring together students teachers who, often during their practicum, feel isolated, therefore contributing to the development of a learning community. Data collected also highlight how electronic discussion groups are much more appre-ciated by preservice teachers than forums and are much more effective for preservice teachers who wish to become reflexive practitioners.
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 | 0.035 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".