Comparing Student Engagement in Online and Face-to-Face Instruction in Health and Physical Education Teacher Preparation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to see if there was a significant difference in engagement among undergraduate health and physical education majors when comparing online instruction to traditional lecture format. Method: Participants in this study were 22 undergraduate health and physical education majors enrolled in the summer semester, in a three-hour class. Two sections of the course were offered to the students. One section was delivered online and the other was delivered by traditional lecture in a face-to-face setting. The course curriculum and assignments were identical for the online and face-to-face courses. Analysis: Thirty-four Likert-scaled questions were used to determine student perception of engagement in the course. Difference in responses of the two study groups were examined using the Mann-Whitney Test (p = .05). Results: The results of this study showed no significant difference in 33 of the 34 variables used to measure engagement. Conclusions: It seems clear from this study that students in undergraduate physical education teacher preparation courses can be engaged in course content, whether that content is offered completely online, or in a traditionally-based face-to-face format.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it