Challenges Faced by Key Stakeholders Using Educational Online Technologies in Blended Tertiary Environments
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
Traditional learning spaces have evolved into dynamic blended tertiary environments (BTEs), providing a modern means through which tertiary education institutes (TEIs) can augment delivery to meet stakeholder needs. Despite the significant demand for web-enabled learning, there are obstacles concerning the use of EOTs, which challenge the continued success of blended implementations in higher education. As technology usage accelerates, it is important for TEIs to understand and address the current challenges faced by key stakeholders using EOTs in BTEs, and provide appropriate support. This paper identifies and discusses the challenges stakeholders experience in using EOTs in BTEs. Interviews with 13 blended learning experts from New Zealand, Australia and Canada identified the challenges in using EOTs, and the extent to which these prevent widespread adoption and effective use of EOTs in BTEs. The outcomes of this study will enable them to design relevant approaches to tackle current obstacles in EOT usage, and deliver meaningful support to key stakeholders in BTEs.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it