Participating with Experience—A Case Study of Students as Co-Producers of Course Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Higher Education (HE) needs to handle a diverse student population. The role of student expectations and previous experience is a key to fully participate. This study investigates student meaning making and interaction in a course designed to stimulate student as co-creators of course content and aims. Results revealed that rich communication added structure for students, that open-ended design challenged student approaches and constructed students as subjects. Analysis was made using recorded webinars, asynchronous discussion forums and e-mails. Data was categorised as communicative actions based on their orientations in the course i.e., what further actions they provoked. Analysis was guided by theories on participation and framing (Wenger & Bernstein). The influence of dominating discourses for the didactics of HE risk excluding some perspectives and experiences when students’ experiences and expectations are not regarded as contributing to the meaning making of their own participating in academic educational practices. Finally, the study suggests that a move into web-based contexts more easily challenges students’ preconceptions of studying.
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 | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| 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".