Switching to blended learning: The impact on students’ academic performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As more and more undergraduate nursing programs (UNP) adopt the blended learning model, which combines traditional face-to-face learning and e-learning, how it impacts on students’ academic performance comes into educators’ mind. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the blended learning model adopted by a UNP could yield the same, if not better academic achievement as compared with the traditional classroom learning. Students enrolled in two undergraduate nursing courses in fall 2008 and spring 2009 semesters were taken as a convenient sample. Students’ academic achieve- ments were compared before and after the two undergraduate nursing courses adopted blended learning. Faculty members who taught those courses before and after the adoption were interviewed for insights on students’ complains and their corresponding solutions. The statistic results showed that there was no significant difference in terms of academic performance before and after the courses adopted blended learning. Interviews from the faculty members suggested that there was some initial resistance from the students on taking the online content outside of class. Pop quizzes at the beginning of each face-to-face class helped motivate students to complete the online portion at home prior coming to the class.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".