Student teachers’ satisfaction for blended learning via Edmodo learning management system
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
In a digitally driven world, behaviours of future teachers for blended learning (both face-to-face and on-line classes) need to be examined. This study serves three purposes. The first is to examine student teachers’ preferences for Community-of-Inquiry model-driven blended learning via Edmodo. Second, predicting student satisfaction on b-learning from a combination of four variables (gender, having internet access, using the internet for information access, and previous experience in on-line learning) was questioned. And third, b-learning orientations of participants were investigated. One of the mixed methods, the concurrent triangulation design was employed in which both qualitative and quantitative methods were applied. The study group included 135 freshmen and junior students (29 males and 106 females) from a western Turkish educational faculty. The findings for the first question indicated that 70.4% of student teachers prefer b-learning. For the second, 15% of the variance in satisfaction on b-learning was explained by the proposed model with a medium effect. And for the third, the qualitative findings were discussed under Perceived Usefulness (PU) and Perceived Uselessness and Unease-of-Use (PU-UU) themes. Although less than a quarter of participants found b-learning useless, most held positive notions for b-learning practices via Edmodo.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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