A Multi-Perspective Investigation into Learners’ Interaction in Asynchronous Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>This article focusses on graduate level students’ interactions during asynchronous CMC activities of an online course about the teaching profession in Turkey. The instructor of the course designed and facilitated a semester-long asynchronous CMC on forum discussions, and investigated the interaction of learners in multiple perspectives: learners’ views, participation in terms of quantity, participation in terms of discussed issues and collaborative construction of new knowledge. 14 graduate students were participated in the study and 12 of them were interviewed. Meanwhile, 345 messages sent by the learners and the instructor were analyzed in order to identify discussed issues and social construction of knowledge. The results of the study showed that according to the message numbers and views of the learners, learner-instructor interaction was ahead of learner-learner interaction. Meanwhile, learner-content interaction was sustained by various discussion topics. Though learners’ views related to learner-learner, learner-instructor and learner-content interactions were positive in general, analyzing the contents of the messages didn’t reveal higher levels of co-construction of knowledge according to the Interaction Analysis Model.</p>
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".