MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1559719334 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.4804

Lecture Material Retention: a First Trial Report on Flipped Classroom Strategies in Electronic Systems Engineering at the University of Regina

2013· article· en· W1559719334 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Doug Wagner, Paul D. Laforge, Douglas G. Cripps

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovative Teaching Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlipped classroomComprehensionEngineering educationCriticismMathematics educationComponent (thermodynamics)Computer scienceEngineeringMultimediaPsychologyEngineering managementPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is increasing pressure to incorporate aspects of the online education model into Canadian Universities. There is also a valid criticism of traditional engineering education models based on the conventional classroom lecture. Whether lectures are seen as boring or extremely entertaining, maximizing student comprehension andengagement as well as retention of information presented in conventional lectures is a challenge being faced widely in engineering education. The strategy explored in this paper is the use of a flipped lecture component in Electronic Systems Engineering courses at the University of Regina.With assistance from the University of Regina’s Centerfor Teaching and Learning, the application of a flipped lecture technique was trialed in a Winter 2013 ESE Course. The results, and future plans are presented .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations55
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicInnovative Teaching MethodsFrench-language works237,207