MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2760982471 · doi:10.1111/bjet.12590

Using learning analytics to explore self‐regulated learning in flipped blended learning music teacher education

2017· article· en· W2760982471 on OpenAlexaff
Amanda P. Montgomery, Amin Mousavi, Michael Carbonaro, Denyse V. Hayward, William Dunn

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Educational Technology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOnline Learning and Analytics
Canadian institutionsAlberta Advanced EducationUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLearning analyticsBlended learningSelf-regulated learningFlipped classroomContext (archaeology)Mathematics educationPsychologyOnline learningEducational technologyAnalyticsComputer scienceMultimediaData science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Blended learning (BL) is a popular e‐Learning model in higher education that has the potential to take advantage of learning analytics (LA) to support student learning. This study utilized LA to investigate fourth‐year undergraduates' ( n = 157) use of self‐regulated learning (SRL) within the online components of a previously unexamined BL discipline, Music Teacher Education. SRL behaviors were captured unobtrusively in real time through students' interaction with course materials in Moodle. Categorized by function: (1) activating —online access location, day‐of‐the‐week, time‐of‐day; (2) sustaining —online frequency; and (3) structuring —online regularity and exam review patterns, all six SRL behaviors were revealed to have weak to moderate significant relationships with academic achievement. Results indicated access day‐of‐the‐week and access frequency as the strongest predictors for student success. Findings regarding access regularity when viewed through results from previous SRL‐LA research may suggest the importance of this SRL behavior for successful students within several BL discipline areas. In addition, the role of learning design (eg, flipped instruction) in potentially scaffolding students' choices toward specific SRL behaviors, was revealed as an important context for future researchers' consideration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations105
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Educational TechnologySame topicOnline Learning and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207