Bibliographic record
Abstract
Online learning has seen tremendous growth over the past decade in both the corporate and higher education sectors of society. This has been facilitated by rapid increases in the availability of computer- and network-based technologies for communication and sharing of information. The U.S. National Center for Educational Statistics (2003) recently reported that for the 2000-01 academic year, 2- and 4-year institutions offered over 127,000 different distance education (DE) courses and had over three million enrollments. Of the institutions offering DE courses, 90% reported using the Internet and asynchronous communication as an instructional delivery mode (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2003). In the corporate sector, the American Society for Training & Development reported record levels technology-mediated training (or e-learning) accompanied by slight decreases in face-to-face classroom training (Thompson, Koon, Woodwell, & Beauvais, 2002). At the same time, there has been an increased awareness among distance educators and researchers regarding the importance of human interaction in the learning process. These two trends have driven the study of computer-mediated communication (CMC) and computer support for collaborative learning (CSCL). Groupwork has long been an important instructional strategy used in face-to-face learning environments and is now being explored in computer-mediated environments. This article will define critical aspects of computer-mediated groupwork and outline benefits and challenges to using computer-mediated groups as an instructional strategy. Additional details for the research presented in this article can be found in full-length publications by the authors (Graham, 2002a, 2002b, 2003; Graham & Misanchuk, 2003).
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.130 | 0.050 |
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".