Deliberative collaboration in learning-by-designing multimodal modeling activities
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
Collaboration is often emphasized as one of the key twenty-first century competencies to promote scientific literacies through many representational modes. However, collaborative interactions have been often characterized as a coordinated, synchronous, and symmetrical activity in terms of the same level of knowledge with little attention paid towards addressing deliberative inquiry and its eclectic nature through multimodal resources. This paper aims to revisit the notion of deliberative collaboration by revisiting Dewey's curriculum theories. As part of a series of design-based research, this qualitative case study reports collaborative learning processes among a group of five Singapore astronomy amateurs with the facilitator in a multimodal modeling workshop. Through the lens of Cultural-Historical Activity Theory, two contradictions were defined as a driving force to co-construct their conceptual understanding of distance and size of celestial objects and co-design multimodal models. This paper concludes with implications for supporting deliberative collaboration in scientific literacies.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it