VIDEO CAMERA ON-OFF DURING SYNCHRONOUS ONLINE GROUP WORK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since its introduction several decades ago, online learning has become a component of higher education, with institutions worldwide providing a form of online course delivery. One key feature of online learning is the use of video conferencing software and the use of a video camera feature. Grounded on Vygotsky and Wallon's ideas of how emotion and cognition are interconnected and equally relevant in learning processes, this paper aims to understand how the use of the video camera feature in synchronous online group work affects relationship building in those settings and the students' overall learning experience. Qualitative findings from 22 semistructured interviews completed with 12 students and 10 instructors enrolled in Canadian postsecondary online teacher education courses are shared. Results indicate instructors and students perceive there are consequences for turning the video camera on and off during synchronous sessions and that seeing others on camera helps promote positive affective relationships among students. The findings contribute to the literature related to video camera usage in online learning environments and serve to inform institutions and instructors designing online courses with synchronous group activities.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".