Alternate Dimensions of Cognitive Presence for Blended Learning in Higher Education
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This exploratory study sought to understand the meaning of cognitive presence for graduate students in a blended learning course. Four research questions guided the investigation, which employed a qualitative instrumental case study approach as the research design. Several data sources were used including: semi structured interviews with graduate students; a cognitive presence questionnaire; a focus group of graduate students; and a text analysis grid examining new dimensions of cognitive presence in 100 discussion posts and 20 student learning autobiographies. Findings suggest that there are alternate dimensions to understanding the concept of cognitive presence. In addition, graduate students have distinct ideas about these various dimensions and the types of pedagogical strategies that enhance cognitive development and learning outcomes. The discussion provides insights into these alternate dimensions of cognitive presence and how to help graduate students acquire higher order thinking skills in a blended learning course through the lens of adult learning.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it