AN INSTRUCTOR’S EXPERIENCE OF IMPLEMENTING BLENDED LEARNING IN ENGINEERING: BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES
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
This paper discusses how a blended learning approach was implemented in two courses in the Civil and Environmental Engineering program at the University of Alberta: CivE 398 (Introduction to Continuum Mechanics); and CivE 295 (Civil Engineering Analysis II). During the blend, two approaches were used to convert content to an online format: first was the development of online videos that were used to complement either in-class or laboratory activities. The second approach was the development of an online textbook (https://sameradeeb.srv.ualberta.ca) with interactive examples which replaced a traditional paper textbook. For each approach, the tools that were used along with the associated costs will be presented. Changes to in-class or lab activities will be also be discussed, along with the associated challenges, and perceived advantages of the blended approach, from the instructor perspective. In addition, the preliminary results of student surveys related
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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