Unveiling Community Needs and Aspirations: Card Sorting as a Research Method for Developing Digital Learning Spaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This pilot study is part of a larger “Decolonization of Digital Learning Spaces” project, which aims to develop research tools for communities that are remote and/or excluded geographically, politically, economically, socially, culturally, and linguistically. The project’s ultimate goal is to work alongside these communities to design their own digital learning tools, networks, and online educational environments by accessing and leveraging their knowledge and skills. Testing the single-criterion card sorting method is the first step toward this goal. Card sorting is an easy, enjoyable, and cost-effective method for data collection and analysis, particularly for researchers working in remote areas with limited access to electricity or the Internet. The pilot explored single-criterion card sorting as a method to elicit knowledge from two diverse cultural and linguistic groups engaged in learning activities within their communities. These groups were from a Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) community in Canada (engaged in a bow-making workshop) and a rural Kabyle community in Algeria (engaged in a traditional cooking lesson). Despite low participant numbers, distinct patterns emerged, indicating the method's effectiveness. The results, though anticipated, were non-random, demonstrating the potential of card sorting in producing patterns indicative of how individuals and/or communities categorize their world(s). Kabyle sortings focused on ingredients, highlighting older individuals as teachers passing along knowledge, while the DHH sortings emphasized face-to-face contact and hand movements in communication. The findings, though modest, established relationships, provided insights into the research context and offered logistical understanding, paving the way for further work with DHH and Kabyle communities towards the design of digital learning spaces.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.033 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".