Facilitating the Development of Study Skills through a Blended Learning Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the effectiveness of a Blended Learning (BL) environment designed to facilitate the learning of study skills with a large (over 200) and diverse undergraduate student cohort in a Higher Education (HE) institution in the UK. A BL environment was designed using the model provided by Kerres & De Witt (2003), and was also designed to be consistent with Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning cycle. Eight focus groups with six students were undertaken to examine student perceptions of their learning experience, and to establish if learning had taken place in each phase of Kolb’s (1984) cycle. All students also completed a reflective study skills essay, and a sample of these were scrutinised for evidence of certain aspects of experiential learning. Student engagement in the module and the BL environment was examined through small group tutorials. The results suggest that the module encouraged a high level of student engagement, and learning in each stage of Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning cycle, and that the use of a BL environment facilitated aspects of this experiential learning. Teachers in HE should therefore consider the potential benefits of a blended learning approach as a means of facilitating the experiential learning of study skills.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".