Power, Voice and Democratization: Feminist Pedagogy and Assessment in CMC
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
Academic Technologies for Learning at the University of Alberta regularly conducts a faculty survey related to the use of, and attitudes towards, the use of learning technologies in both face-to-face and distributed learning environments. The 1999-2000 survey revealed some significant differences in the ways that female and male faculty approached the use of te chnology in teaching. Subsequently, the authors pursued these trends through a project of action research in which over 40 female faculty participated. The literature on critical feminist teaching in academia provided a context for this study. Learning design preferences revealed by the female faculty who participated tended to reflect relational values common to the design of learner -centred approaches that place a high value on interactions with students, such as computer-mediated communications (CMC). While many faculty who used CMC grieved the reduction, or loss, of face -to-face contact they also appreciated the increased intimacy of, and democratization inherent in, online conversation. However, this attribute highlighted conflictual feelings about the assessment of these conversations, as the culture of the institution is based on an uneven “power balance” in the classroom. This raised the question of how a feminist teacher understands and accommodates the requirements of learner assessment in envi ronments like CMC, that encourage the construction of knowledge through collaborative conversation. This paper attempts to address this “problem of practice” for female faculty by reviewing and synthesizing the literature on critical pedagogy, feminist teaching, and the assessment of student learning in feminist classrooms. We discuss the assessment approaches used in CMC that are reflected in the stories of seven female faculty. Six issues are identified: necessary coercion, relocating authority, taken-for-granted assumptions, safety, and process as product, and addressing equity.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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