Scaffolding at the Inter-group Level: An International Collaboration Experience between Hong Kong and Canada Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of scaffolding suggests that with appropriate assistance, a learner could attain a goal or engage in a practice otherwise out of reach (Davis & Miyake, 2004). Previous studies have explored scaffolding between or among individuals (e.g., Wood, et al., 1976; Palincsar & Brown, 1984). This paper examined scaffolding that could happen at an inter-group level. A group of 22 Hong Kong primary five students collaborated with a group of 22 Canada grade five students through an online discussion forum. Although they were of the same grade, it was the first year for Hong Kong students to engage in online discussion activities, while Canada students were much experienced in this type of learning activities. As Pea (2004) argued that “fading”, which was the removal of supports to let learners act on their own, was as an essential component of scaffolding, this study incorporated a three-phase design so that fading could be studied in addition to the effect of scaffolding. In phase one, Hong Kong students discussed among themselves on the forum. In phase two, Canada students joined in the discussion with Hong Kong students. In phase three, Canada students were no longer present on the forum while Hong Kong students continued to discuss among themselves. To analyze the interaction patterns of the students, social network analysis was employed in the present study. It was found that in phase one, Hong Kong students tended to write isolated notes and work on their own topic; while in phase two, with the joining in of Canada students, the interaction pattern changed drastically, with the notes were linked with one another, even among those written by Hong Kong students. In phase three, although Canada students were no longer present on the discussion forum, the interaction pattern retained among Hong Kong students that their notes were linked with one another. The study suggested that with a more experienced group, the interaction pattern of a novice group in online discussion could be changed and the changed pattern could retain even the experienced group no longer present.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".