MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2887175010 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.9618

STUDENT AND FACULTY EXPERIENCE WITH BLENDED LEARNING IN A FIRST-YEAR CHEMISTRY FOR ENGINEERS COURSE

2018· article· en· W2887175010 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Eline Boghaert, Jason Grove, Marios A. Ioannidis, Felicia Pantazi, Mary E. Power

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovative Teaching Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsBlended learningPaceMathematics educationCourse (navigation)Class (philosophy)Term (time)Plan (archaeology)Computer scienceMedical educationPsychologyEngineeringEducational technologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract CHE 102, Chemistry for Engineers, is an introductory chemistry course taken by most engineering students at the University of Waterloo during their first term of study. In an effort to create time for more valuable instructor-student interaction and to allow students to explore course content at their own pace, some lecture sections piloted a blended learning model for approximately half the Fall 2016 term. Data from surveys administered throughout the term were combined with course grade data in an effort to compare and contrast student experience, satisfaction and performance between a blended learning and traditional lecture model of instruction. While the results from the Fall 2016 study are inconclusive due to challenges with survey administration and implementing the blended learning model, lessons were learned with respect to the readiness of the students for self-directed learning and the integration of the online and in-class components. We plan on continuing this study during the Fall 2017 term.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicInnovative Teaching MethodsFrench-language works237,207