MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410074605 · doi:10.33650/ijit.v1i1.3429

The Effect of Distance Education: A Meta-Analytic Assessment of Simonson's Equity Theory based on Synchronous and Asynchronous

2022· article· en· W4410074605 on OpenAlexafffund
Roger S. Bensilva

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Instructional Technology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaConcordia UniversityLouisiana State University
KeywordsAsynchronous communicationDistance educationEquity (law)Computer scienceEconometricsMathematics educationPsychologyArtificial intelligenceMathematicsPolitical scienceTelecommunicationsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Simonson, Schlosser and Hanson (1999) argue that a new theory called “equivalency theory” is needed to account for the unique features of the “teleconferencing” (synchronous) model of DE that is prevalent in many North American universities. Based on a comprehensive meta-analysis of the comparative literature of DE (Bernard, Abrami, Lou, Wozney, Borokhovski, Wallet, Wade, Fiset, & Huang, in press), we are able to assess empirically whether equivalency has been achieved in prior comparative DE research. This paper includes a brief summary of the results of the split between synchronous and asynchronous patterns of DE, and addresses the implications these data have for developing separate theories of DE for synchronous (i.e., group-based) and asynchronous (i.e., individualized) applications. We examine data based on achievement, attitude and retention outcomes and coded study features (i.e., methodological, pedagogical and media) relating to them.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
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 score0.430
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.359 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Instructional TechnologySame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207