MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2592825063 · doi:10.19173/irrodl.v18i1.2645

The Effects of Integrating Social Learning Environment with Online Learning

2017· article· en· W2592825063 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Miroslava Raspopović, Svetlana Cvetanović, Ivana Medan, Danijela Ljubojević

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistarstvo Prosvete, Nauke i Tehnološkog Razvoja
KeywordsSynchronous learningComputer scienceEducational technologyActive learning (machine learning)Learning environmentCooperative learningBlended learningExperiential learningOnline learningCollaborative learningClass (philosophy)Learning sciencesSocial learningKnowledge managementMultimediaTeaching methodMathematics educationPsychologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p class="3">The aim of this paper is to present the learning and teaching styles using the Social Learning Environment (SLE), which was developed based on the computer supported collaborative learning approach. To avoid burdening learners with multiple platforms and tools, SLE was designed and developed in order to integrate existing systems, institutional learning, management systems, and Facebook. With SLE, a learner is exposed to instructional learning material, problem-based, project-based, and social learning. This work focuses on presenting and analyzing effectiveness of implemented teaching and learning scenarios that are used by means of SLE. This study investigates the use of SLE as a learning environment and it examines student satisfaction and online activity while using it. The aim is to evaluate the overall effectiveness of integrating SLE with online learning and to determine how using SLE effects student learning. This analysis points out the advantages and disadvantages of using SLE in online learning and provides recommendations for future improvements.</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 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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.848
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.399 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations93
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed LearningSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207