MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2408113162 · doi:10.21432/t2r890

Web 2.0 and Social Media Connecting Learners in Self-Paced Study: Practitioners’ Perspectives | Le Web 2.0 et les médias sociaux reliant les apprenants dans l’étude à leur rythme : points de vue de praticiens

2016· article· en· W2408113162 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Janice K. Thiessen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Learning and Technology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpen universityPsychologyHumanitiesComputer scienceSociologyDistance educationPedagogyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Distance learners determine the time and place for their studies—those engaged in self-paced study may also choose the rate at which they proceed through their courses. However, it is difficult to incorporate purposeful learner-learner interaction into self-paced study. A multiple-case study included three open universities with in-house design and development of self-paced undergraduate courses. Data was gathered from in-depth interviews with course developers (academics and learning/teaching specialists), self-paced course materials, and institutional documents. This article reports on the ways in which these course designers and developers are making use of Web 2.0 and network-based approaches to encourage open, social forms of learner-learner interaction in self-paced courses. Les apprenants à distance déterminent à quel moment et à quel endroit ils étudient. Ceux qui étudient selon leur propre rythme peuvent aussi choisir la vitesse à laquelle ils progressent dans leurs cours. Il est toutefois difficile d’intégrer une interaction significative entre les apprenants dans les études adaptées au rythme de l’élève. Une étude de cas multiples a été menée auprès de trois universités ouvertes qui conçoivent et développent à l’interne des cours de premier cycle selon le rythme de l’apprenant. Des données ont été recueillies à partir d’entrevues approfondies avec les développeurs de cours (professeurs universitaires et spécialistes pédagogiques), du matériel des cours selon le rythme de l’apprenant et de documents provenant des établissements. Cet article rapporte les façons dont ces concepteurs et développeurs de cours utilisent le Web 2.0 et les approches en réseau pour favoriser des formes ouvertes et sociales d’interactions entre les apprenants dans les cours que ceux-ci suivent selon leur propre rythme.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.167

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.009
Scholarly communication0.0120.008
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Learning and TechnologySame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207