MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W753705

Using wikis to support learning in post-secondary economics

2009· dissertation· en· W753705 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gretchen Lowerison

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Physiology · 2009
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWikis in Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTask (project management)NegotiationMathematics educationControl (management)Process (computing)Value (mathematics)Sample (material)Computer sciencePsychologyKnowledge managementPedagogyEngineeringSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wikis are part of what is known as Web 2.0, or the read-write web, describing technology that have the potential to provide learners with tools that promote knowledge building through collaboration, social negotiation, and the reviewing and revising of ideas. When building a wiki, learners engage in a process of forethought, performance, and reflection, requiring that they be cognitively active with the learning material and carefully evaluate the accuracy of their understanding. This study examined the effects of contributing to a wiki combined with varying levels of pedagogical support using a 2 x 2 factorial design: Wiki (no-wiki / wiki) x Pedagogical Support (low / high). The sample consisted of 98 students in 4 sections of an introductory macroeconomics course at a large urban technical college in western Canada. While there is still much to understand regarding the impact of using wikis to support and foster meaningful learning the results of this study produced several important findings and practical implications. The results found that while there was no significant difference between wiki-users and the control group for achievement and overall perceived course effectiveness, there were advantages ascribed to the wiki groups. With respect to motivation, the results found that wiki-users coupled with higher levels of pedagogical support rated intrinsic goal orientation, task value, and self-efficacy significantly higher than the control group. When comparing the two wiki conditions it was found that learners in the wiki high pedagogical support condition rated task value significantly higher than those in the wiki low pedagogical support condition though with small effect sizes. Finally, preliminary descriptive data yielded profound differences between the two wiki groups with regard to their primary intention: collaboration. High levels of support appeared to stifle dialogue. Differences in how learners approached the task of building the wiki under different levels of pedagogical support were observed suggesting that even in a flexible, learner controlled environment, the instructor's suggested structure will have a large impact on how the tool is used. Implications for practice and future research are discussed

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.474
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.354 · 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.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman PhysiologySame topicWikis in Education and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207