MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140424482 · doi:10.21432/t2d30r

Perspectives on the Use of “Anonymous” Discussion Forums in Undergraduate Education Courses / Perspectives sur l’usage des forums de discussion « partiellement anonymes » dans le cadre de cours universitaires de premier cycle en éducation

2012· article· en· W2140424482 on OpenAlexaffvenue
G. Michael Bowen, Robert Farmer, Nicole Arsenault

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Learning and Technology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsMount Saint Vincent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyOnline discussionLibrary sciencePedagogyHumanitiesPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper theorizes issues involved with conflicts between participation in on-line settings and real-world social commitments, such as has recently happened in schools with students using public discussion forums. We problematize how real-world social commitments negatively affect participation in online learning environments frequently used in classrooms. Drawing on interviews with, observations by, and written submissions from our students who participated in “hybrid” courses using an approach where identity was concealed in online discussions from other class participants, we discuss implications of this issue for evaluating forum submissions by students. Our analysis uses a cultural-historical activity theory framework to conceptualize implications from this anonymous forum approach and the resultant changes in participation in the learning environment. Cet article élabore une théorie des enjeux associés aux conflits entre la participation dans un environnement en ligne et les engagements sociaux réels, comme ce qui se produit actuellement dans les écoles, les étudiants se servant de forums publics de discussion pour leurs cours. Nous schématisons la façon dont les engagements sociaux réels ont des effets négatifs sur la participation aux environnements d’apprentissage en ligne fréquemment utilisés dans les salles de classe. À partir d’entrevues, d’observations et de communications écrites par les étudiants qui ont participé à nos cours « hybrides » en adoptant une approche par laquelle l’identité était gardée cachée des autres étudiants (mais non des instructeurs) dans les discussions en ligne, nous discutons des implications de cet enjeu dans l’évaluation des soumissions des étudiants dans les forums. Notre analyse se sert d’un cadre théorique de l’activité historico-culturelle pour conceptualiser les implications de cette approche de forum « partiellement anonyme » et les changements de participation qui en résultent dans l’environnement d’apprentissage.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.568
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.290 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Learning and TechnologySame topicInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsFrench-language works237,207