A study of asynchronous and synchronous collaboration between subjects for the production of educational material
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study seeks to determine the work process of subjects collaborating asynchronously and synchronously as well as to evaluate the impact on the production of educational material from such collaboration. Twenty-one subjects participated in an experiment, of which 7 worked asynchronously and by themselves and 14 worked synchronously in dyads. Their task consisted in producing a 1-1.5 hours learning exercise on usability testing for students present in a classroom, with the possibility of using a collection of educational material, repositories and external sources. They were videotaped while working and interviewed after the experiment. The principal results are as follows: both groups of subjects often repurposed exercises and others' educational materials placed at their disposal rather than simply reusing them; both groups reused others' material, either totally or partially, and in the latter case, they reused the structure, the content, or the concept; both groups produced exercises comprising more than one educational activity; and the exercises produced by subjects working asynchronously displayed a content-driven strategy while those produced by subjects working synchronously displayed an activity/practice-driven strategy. Moreover, within-group and between-group differences could be observed in the scanning and use of others' materials. These results entail consequences on the way a collaborative technology, such as a shared repository, should be organized, and on the choice of a mode of collaboration for the production of educational material.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".