Evaluating Asynchronous Discussion as Social Constructivist Pedagogy in an Online Undergraduate Gerontological Social Work Course
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our design-based research project used constructivist grounded theory methodology to determine if specific pedagogies used in an online gerontological social work course stimulated learners’ critical reflection and reflexivity. The purpose of our study was to describe the learning that occurred in response to an instructional design based on social constructivism and to identify strategies for improving the instructional design in future iterations of the course. Our analysis focused on two specific pedagogies that are grounded in social constructivism; the asynchronous discussion and the use of problem-based learning to better understand how learners construct meaning and to determine whether these pedagogies are effective means of stimulating critical reflection and reflexivity. Social work education scholars have suggested that critical reflection and reflexivity are higher-level cognitive operations that are conducive to learners’ developing capacity for anti-oppressive social work practice with older adults.    Â
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it