MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044824686 · doi:10.5539/ies.v6n6p61

Preference Learning Style in Engineering Mathematics: Students Perception of E-Learning

2013· article· en· W2044824686 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Norngainy Mohd Tawil, Nur Arzilah Ismail, Izamarlina Asshaari, Haliza Othman, Azami Zaharim, Hafizah Bahaludin

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation, Literature, Philosophy Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
KeywordsMathematics educationLearning stylesExperiential learningPreferenceCooperative learningBlended learningPsychologyActive learning (machine learning)Style (visual arts)Educational technologyCognitive styleSample (material)Learning sciencesTeaching methodPreference learningComputer scienceMathematicsArtificial intelligenceCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nowadays, traditional learning styles are assisted with e-learning components to ensure the effectiveness the teaching and learning process especially for the students. This approach is known as blended learning. Objective of this paper is to investigate and clarify the students’ preferences in learning style either traditional or e-learning. Specifically, traditional learning styles fall into two group which are by individual or by group. The sample of this study consists of 189 First Year engineering students at the Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment UKM who have taken Mathematics as their core courses. This study revealed that students are preferred to study in traditional learning styles compared to e-learning. Also, individual learning styles is the most favourable.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.241
Threshold uncertainty score0.437

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.355 · 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.

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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicEducation, Literature, Philosophy ResearchFrench-language works237,207