BUILDING COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE: EXPERIENCES IN A SOCIAL AND COMMUNAL CONSTRUCTIVIST ENVIRONMENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Focusing on an education graduate student’s investigation into their participation in a class wiki, the paper documents the ways student perceptions of a wiki can change their contributions, the wiki itself, and the community that surrounds it. Specifically, wikis and the ways they function as social constructivist and communal constructivist learning tools, pushing the boundaries of their members’ collective zone of proximal development, are discussed. The paper provides evidence that the wiki has the potential to play a valuable role in the construction of a community of practice, if social aspects are taken advantage of. It examines how the perceptions students have of the reliability of their peers’ research and writing skills directly affect their attitudes towards the usefulness of the wiki and discoveries are made about how the collaborative knowledge base of the class wiki should be utilized and participation improved upon. These findings are applied to the possibility of creating a similar wiki community in online and face-to-face secondary classrooms, and the implications and challenges of doing this, such as digital literacy, reliability and socialization, are explored.
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 | 0.020 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".