# [LON-CAPA-cvs] cvs: modules /gerd/discussions/paper discussions.tex

www lon-capa-cvs@mail.lon-capa.org
Thu, 05 Jan 2006 18:16:22 -0000

www		Thu Jan  5 13:16:22 2006 EDT

Modified files:
/modules/gerd/discussions/paper	discussions.tex
Log:
Starting to get worse with each revision. Time to stop and submit.

Index: modules/gerd/discussions/paper/discussions.tex
diff -u modules/gerd/discussions/paper/discussions.tex:1.37 modules/gerd/discussions/paper/discussions.tex:1.38
--- modules/gerd/discussions/paper/discussions.tex:1.37	Thu Jan  5 13:02:24 2006
+++ modules/gerd/discussions/paper/discussions.tex	Thu Jan  5 13:16:21 2006
@@ -235,8 +235,14 @@
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{table*}
-Discussion contributions were always classified as a whole, and since they were fairly short, they mostly fell clearly into one of the classes. If a longer contribution had aspects of more than one class, it was characterized by
-the class that its majority fell into. Discussion contributions by teaching assistants and instructors were not
+All 3394 discussion contributions were classified by the author over the course of two months.
+Discussion contributions were always classified as a whole, and since they were mostly fairly short and targeted, the majority fell clearly into one of the classes. If a longer contribution had aspects of more than one class, it was characterized by
+the class that its majority fell into. However, in a future study, the design should likely allow for more than one classification, such that each contribution can have fractional membership in more than one class.
+Reliability and generalizability of the classification could be enhanced by asking more than one instructor to classify each contribution, and being able to fractionally consider each
+judgement in case of disagreements.
+
+
+Discussion contributions by teaching assistants and instructors were not
considered. Also, the correctness of the posting was not considered, e.g., a discussion entry was considered conceptual'' even if it drew the wrong conclusions.
Table~\ref{table:disccat} shows the distribution of the available discussion contributions.
\begin{table}
@@ -260,10 +266,6 @@
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{table}
-All 3394 discussion contributions were classified by the author over the course of two months. Each discussion contribution can only be in one class, for example Emotional/Physics-Related/Question.''
-In most cases, classification was straightforward, since the contributions are usally short and targeted. However, in a future study, the design should likely allow for more than one classification, such that each contribution can have fractional membership in more than one class.
-Reliability and generalizability of the classification could be enhanced by having more than one instructor classifying each contribution, and being able to fractionally consider each
-judgement in case of disagreements.

Different classes were combined into the following
superclasses'':