The search for meaningful e-learning at Canadian universities: A multi-institutional research study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>While e-learning is now characterized by a past and trends within that past, there continues to be uncertainty about how e-learning is defined and conceptualized, whether or not we like e-learning, and whether or not it is as meaningful to us as face to face learning. The purpose of this study was to document the e-learning perceptions of students at three Canadian post-secondary institutions. Key components of e-learning courses including ease of navigation, course design, resource availability, and adequacy of e-learning supports and their impact on the student learning experience were also evaluated. Based on a survey of students (n= 1,377) as well as their participation in focus groups, the following are presented as important findings: the majority of students studying in e-learning courses at the three institutions represented in the study were women; ease of navigation, course design, and previous experience with e-learning consistently demonstrated a statistically significant predictive capacity for positive e-learning experiences; and students expressed less preference for e-learning instructional strategies than their faculty. Study findings hold implications for e-learning faculty, instructional designers, and administrators at institutions of higher education in Canada and elsewhere where e-learning is part of the institutional mandate. Additionally, further research into student perceptions of and experiences with e-learning is recommended.</p>
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 | 0.051 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".