Benefits and Challenges of Technology-Enabled Learning using the Community of Inquiry Theoretical Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Introduction to Technology-Enabled Learning (TEL) MOOC was intended to engage teachers worldwide who work in any level of education and are interested in technology-enabled learning and open educational resources. This paper investigates the response by participants to the content presented in week one on the Community of Inquiry (CoI) model, in particular, the benefits and challenges of using the CoI framework with in the classroom, whether it is online, blended or face-to-face. Titre: Benefices et defis des technologies pour l’apprentissage selon le cadre theorique de la communaute d’apprentissage L’introduction du MOOC sur les technologies pour l’apprentissage visait a engager des enseignants du monde entier qui, quel que soit le niveau auquel ils enseignent, s’interessent aux technologies pour l’apprentissage et aux ressources educatives libres. Cet article traite de la reponse donnee par les participants au contenu presente dans la semaine une, sur le modele de la communaute d’apprentissage, en particulier les benefices et defis accompagnant l’usage du cadre de la communaute d’apprentissage dans la salle de classe, que cela soit en ligne, hybride ou face-a-face. Mots-cles: CLOMs, Communaute d’apprentissage, Technologies pour l’apprentissage
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".