Grade 11 Students' Strategies for Collaboratively Writing from Online Sources of Information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to identify the strategies used by Grade 11 students to collaboratively create an opinion piece based on online sources of information. Using either iPads or Chromebooks, 22 grade 11 students worked in pairs to research a topic online and create a persuasive piece. They could choose what type of persuasive product to create, for example, slides, an essay, a brochure, or a website. As students worked, their voices and computer screens were recorded using Screencastify or Camtasia. Students’ written products were captured on the screen recordings and their final products were also collected. Initial analyses show that student pairs used a variety of strategies for prewriting (e.g., taking notes collaboratively in a Google Doc), writing (e.g., each student writing one section), and revising (e.g., using a spell checker), with the majority of time spent on the creation of content. In addition, students used strategies for locating and using source material (e.g., searching online by keyword). In some pairs, each student wrote a section and then they spliced their sections together. In others, content was created more collaboratively. Analysis is ongoing; the presentation will provide detailed descriptions of students’ strategy use.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".