MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3024580177 · doi:10.46303/ressat.05.02.3

#Education: The Potential Impact of Social Media and Hashtag Ideology on the Classroom

2020· article· en· W3024580177 on OpenAlexaff
Ellen Watson

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch in Social Sciences and Technology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdeologyConverseSocial mediaRestructuringThematic analysisMathematics educationComputer scienceThematic mapMultimediaPedagogySociologyPsychologyWorld Wide WebSocial sciencePolitical scienceQualitative researchEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Common on social media platforms, the hashtag (#) organizes users’ ideas, emotions, and comments. Originally used to create a searchable platform, the hashtag and its ideology present interesting considerations for changes to education. As students using social media today most certainly use hashtags to converse, hashtag-informed teaching could connect education to students’ worlds instead of forcing students to fit into the pre-defined world of education. Prevalent in post-secondary education, K-12 educators have recently begun to integrate social media tools into their classrooms, but what are the pedagogical implications of the ideologies of these tools? In response, this study asked the following question: “How can the hashtag inform the K-12 classroom?” Using a systematic literature review and thematic analysis, this study analyzed eight articles that discussed the use of hashtags with K-12 students. Findings indicated four themes that could inform the alignment of K-12 classrooms with hashtag ideology: encouraging voice and user-generated content, the potential of self-organization, network hetero/homogeneity, and connecting to space without a common physical space. Suggestions are provided as to how classrooms (and education) may consider restructuring to better reflect hashtag ideology, meeting students in their social media-driven world.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.017
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.117
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.345 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch in Social Sciences and TechnologySame topicImpact of Technology on AdolescentsFrench-language works237,207