Using a concept mapping software as a knowledge construction tool in a graduate online 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
Stemming from a twenty-month pedagogical experience using a concept mapping software for higher education students in an online course, this paper reports findings from what became an exploratory study. The objectives were to support the students' knowledge construction process and to stimulate metacognitive reflection. After having read some instructional texts, students used an object-oriented modeling tool (called MOT) to graphically represent a network of at least fifteen knowledge units of their choice. They also had to "explain" their concept map in a narrative format. Based on questionnaire data, comments expressed spontaneously by students in the online forums, and the analysis of their concept maps, the following themes are discussed: (1) students' attitudes toward concept mapping, (2) how they executed the concept mapping task, and (3) characteristics of the maps produced. In conclusion, some research issues are outlined.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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