Educators collaborating across cultures in a computer mediated communications environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study sought to understand how teachers from different cultures, i.e., Canada and England, learned to collaborate in a computer mediated communications environment. Groups of teachers formed groups through a face-to-face meeting and then worked together in a CMC environment to design common learning experiences for their students. Insights into how the process of collaboration developed in CMC were gained through a qualitative case study in which data were collected through interviews, email dialogue, a survey, and the researcher's journal and field notes. Analysis of the case data showed that: (1) the newly formed groups, working in a CMC environment, worked through a series of group functioning stages, (2) teachers in the Project thought it was important to know the group members well and that face-to-face interaction helped with this, (3) the newly formed groups working in a CMC environment were influenced by the new collaborative relationship as well as the computer technology and therefore required additional time to complete tasks, (4) easy access to computers for emailing was necessary, (5) the groups of teachers collaborating in a CMC environment successfully collaborated to create a product, (6) establishing situations in which groups of teachers collaborate through CMC can effect change in the teaching/learning environment, (7) differences between educational issues and structures imposed on individual group members impacted on group members' ability to collaborate in CMC, and (8) the extent to which cultural diversity manifests itself was unresolved due to the similarities of the English and Canadian cultures. Slight differences in holidays impacted somewhat on the flow of email dialogue. The implication for change endeavours is that collaboration in a CMC environment can be an effective change strategy. Teachers in the two case studies emerged from the Project with confidence in their abilities to collaborate in a CMC environment and to continue to, through this medium, productively create/design learning experiences for their students. Participants found it difficult to work in a CMC environment. Their work demanded careful planning and extensive support.
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".