MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W247829779

The paradox of social media in higher education institutions

2010· article· en· W247829779 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueLancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWeb and Library Services
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic relationsSocial mediaSociologyConversationInstitutionHigher educationContext (archaeology)Government (linguistics)NegotiationPedagogyPolitical scienceSocial science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores the paradox that occurs between institutional expectations and expectations held by student regarding the use of social media in support of learning in higher education settings. Specifically, the example is given of a disagreement that took place in a recent conversation in a distributed medical education programme in Canada. The current body of research regarding the incongruity of expectations about integrating social media into a higher education institution framework suggests that a widening gap is emerging and that conflict is taking place. The example from Canada exemplifies the difference that exists in people’s understandings and expectations of how social media can be employed for benefit in education. The paper looks at the principles of social media and the potential impact on many of society’s institutions, including government, commerce, media and education. Interestingly, higher education seems to have fallen behind in adopting and adapting to the new social media reality. The key points of social constructivist thinking are then examined with special attention to the following five points: learning requires active participation by the learner; previous experience is important when reinforcing new learning; individual knowledge construction requires a social interaction element; negotiation within the learning environment is essential; and, learning best takes place within a socio-cultural context. These principles are then addressed in relation to the social media principles of active participation, collaboration and that of reflection. Finally, three points are expanded as to potential sources and reasons why conflict may occur when trying to integrate a popular social media perspective into the established higher education setting. These are: existing hierarchical structure of higher education institutions; accreditation and quality concerns; and, formal and informal learning. Social media is more than computer application and programs and the technology behind them it is about transformation. At its core, social media is a collection of ideas about community, openness, flexibility, collaboration, transformation and it is all user-centred. If education and educational institutions can understand and adopt these principles, perhaps there is a chance for significant change in how we teach and learn in formal and informal settings. The challenge is to discover how to facilitate this change.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.194 · 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