Student Perceptions and Lessons Learned from Flipping a Master's Level Environmental and Occupational Health Course (Perceptions des étudiants et leçons tirées d'une classe inversée pour un cours de maîtrise en santé environnementale et professionnelle).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The flipped classroom instructional model has emerged as an alternative to the conventional lecture-based teaching that has dominated higher education for decades. In 2013, a cohort of graduate-level public health students participated in a flipped environmental and occupational health course. We present the design, implementation, and evaluation of this course. Using data collected from a post-course survey, focus group sessions, and classroom observation, we examine student perceptions of the flipped classroom instructional model and synthesize lessons we learned relevant to flipping courses in general. Post-course survey data indicate that students had largely positive perceptions towards the flipped classroom instructional model. Four major themes emerged from the focus group data in relation to perceptions of the flipped classroom: knowledge application, content delivery, innovation, and connecting the online and in-class components. These results are promising and suggest that this approach warrants further consideration and research.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".