MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6999243821

Collaborative information behavior in learning tasks: a study of engineering students

2013· dissertation· en· W6999243821 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2013
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation Retrieval and Search Behavior
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeliverableTask (project management)Information behaviorCollaborative learningConstruct (python library)Variety (cybernetics)InterimInformation systemCooperative learning
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Collaborative information behaviour is an emerging area in information science that deals with the identification, seeking, searching, and use of information by two or more people to accomplish a task. This dissertation investigates the collaborative information behaviour of senior undergraduate engineering students working on group design-projects at a Canadian university. The dissertation presents a longitudinal research using a constructivist grounded theory methodology in two different but related studies undertaken in successive academic years. The main research method consisted of a web-based survey, bimonthly semi-structured interviews with eight students, and the project deliverables for six different project groups. Project deliverables included weekly reports that described group and project activities, and the projects' interim and final reports. The research results show that learning tasks associated with engineering design projects were information-intensive tasks; information seeking, searching, and use have been ongoing needed activities during the lifespan of these projects. There was found to be a strong relationship among learning task stages and phases, task complexity, and collaborative information behavior. Collaborative information behaviors occurred variably at different project stages and levels, and their nature were task-dependent. Students' perception of task complexity triggered collaborative seeking and use of a variety of information sources, with preferences for information from perceived subject-experts. It was also found, in many situations, when students' perceived task complexity increased, their information behavior tended to be more collaborative.The study highlighted the need for groups to construct and share a collaborative situation awareness in order to maintain and regulate their activities in information seeking and use; this shared awareness was enabled by students' interactions in their group meetings or their use of collaborative software tools for information sharing. Learners sought and created meaning from information through collaborative information synthesis over long intervals by prioritizing, judging relevance, and building connections of information. The research investigated collaborative information behavior in learning tasks through a detailed analysis of findings that resulted in a holistic conceptual framework illustrating the dynamic interplay of the components of task-based collaborative information behavior in learning tasks. Collaborative information behavior was conceptualized with details in its three distinct but interrelated dimensions: (1) learner's knowledge, (2) learners' activities and interactions, and (3) information objects; the representation of interdependence of these three dimensions confirmed the complexity of collaborative information behavior as a human behavior that cannot be investigated by focusing on a single dimension and eliminating the other ones.The dissertation presents original research that extends our conceptual understanding of students' collaborative information behavior in learning tasks and also provides more insights into how collaborative information behaviors are dynamically shaped by the characteristics of the learning task.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.785
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.006
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.253 · 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