Argumentation in web-based collaborative inquiry learning: scripts for writing and scripts for talking aren't the same
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
We use the script concept to describe knowledge structures that help individuals understand and act in specific contexts as well as scaffolds structuring collaborative learning. External scripts can be presented in different ways, e.g. as written text. For internal scripts, it is not clear whether they have identical effects on collaborative argumentation processes in oral vs. written discussions. We empirically investigated the effects of two differently structured external scripts on the structural quality of written and oral arguments produced in dyads with either low or high structured internal scripts. External scripts were presented in a written mode at specific instances in a web-based inquiry learning environment. Results indicate that the high structured external script strongly improved the structural quality of the written arguments, but had hardly any effects on orally produced arguments, which were instead more strongly influenced by the learners' internal scripts.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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