Assessing the value created through participating in a graduate studies community of practice
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
In effort to overcome the challenges related to enhancing student learning and academic achievement in higher education, researchers continue to explore a myriad of educational strategies and best practices.Communities of Practice (CoPs) have been identified as a means to nurture the learning and expertise of members in a variety of contexts.Despite the numerous studies that have reported the many benefits of participating in CoPs, studies that assess the value created through such participation are lacking, especially within educational settings.The purpose of this study was to assess the value created through participating in a graduate studies CoP comprised of 14 graduate students and three professors.Using a case study design and a value creation framework, findings revealed that all group members gained personally meaningful and relevant value through participating in the CoP, which in turn led to enhanced learning and a gain of academic competencies.The findings provided empirical support for the value framework, which is discussed in relation to its implications for the future study and application of CoPs in higher education.
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 | 0.036 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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