Enhancing Student Engagement through an Institutional Blended Learning Initiative: a Case Study
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
Tertiary education institutions grapple with how to better engage students in their learning in high-enrolment, introductory courses. This paper presents a case study that examines a large-scale, faculty-level course redesign project in which this challenge was addressed through the use of blended learning models. The main research question was: Are students in blended formats engaged in their learning differently than those in the traditional formats? The first part of this paper describes the institutional policies, processes, and practices that were established to implement the course redesign project. The second part of the paper focuses on the effectiveness of the project, presenting the results of a longitudinal research study that examined changes in student engagement using the Classroom Survey of Student Engagement (CLASSE). The implications of the longitudinal evaluation and institutional strategy, structure, and support components are examined critically, as well as the project’s impact on students and on the larger university.
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 | 0.020 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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