MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2528627073 · doi:10.3402/gha.v9.28145

Student experiences of participating in five collaborative blended learning courses in Africa and Asia: a survey

2016· article· en· W2528627073 on OpenAlex
Salla Atkins, Weirong Yan, Elnta Meragia, Hassan Mahomed, Senia Rosales-Klintz, Donald G. Skinner, Merrick Zwarenstein

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Health Action · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsLogistic regressionMedical educationOdds ratioConfidence intervalPsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: As blended learning (BL; a combination of face-to-face and e-learning methods) becomes more commonplace, it is important to assess whether students find it useful for their studies. ARCADE HSSR and ARCADE RSDH (African Regional Capacity Development for Health Systems and Services Research; Asian Regional Capacity Development for Research on Social Determinants of Health) were unique capacity-building projects, focusing on developing BL in Africa and Asia on issues related to global health. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the student experience of participating in any of five ARCADE BL courses implemented collaboratively at institutions from Africa, Asia, and Europe. DESIGN: A post-course student survey with 118 students was conducted. The data were collected using email or through an e-learning platform. Data were analysed with SAS, using bivariate and multiple logistic regression. We focused on the associations between various demographic and experience variables and student-reported overall perceptions of the courses. RESULTS: =0.0036, OR=0.165; 95% CI: 0.049-0.555) were found to be associated with a more positive perception of BL, as measured by student rating of the overall helpfulness of the e-learning component to their studies. In contrast, perceiving the assessment as adequate was associated with a worse perception of overall usefulness. In a multiple regression, the course, experiencing no technical problems, and perceiving the discussion as adequate remained significantly associated with a more positively rated perception of the usefulness of the online component of the blended courses. DISCUSSION: The results suggest that lack of technical problems and functioning discussion forums are of importance during BL courses focusing on global health-related topics. Through paying attention to these aspects, global health education could be provided using BL approaches to student satisfaction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.345
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.394 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it