The Use of Web 2.0 Technologies in Formal and Informal Learning Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is often assumed that because the current generation of students is more technologically competent than previous generations, they would prefer to use technology for both formal and informal learning. The results of a series of empirical studies indicated that students in formal settings preferred face-to-face contact with their instructors and used Web 2.0 tools for communication and to complete specific class assignments; in their personal lives, these technologies were used for communication, music and video downloads, and online gaming. Although students did not use social networking in their classes, the use of these tools may provide educators with an alternative to course management systems. Results from a community sample indicated a preference towards using the Internet for information gathering, and even though respondents reported that the incorporation of social networking sites in informal education settings would be nice, it was not expected. Overall, both student and community participants utilized technology that was familiar to them. Thus, assuming technological competence in our students and implementing various technological applications in the classroom may be counterproductive if guidance and training are not provided.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".