MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903305764 · doi:10.5539/mas.v12n12p217

Students Attitudes toward Blended Learning among students of the University of Jordan

2018· article· en· W2903305764 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Applied Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlended learningMathematics educationEducational technologyExperiential learningThe InternetCooperative learningProcess (computing)PsychologyComputer scienceTeaching methodWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Information and communication Technology and the use of internet has added many values to the educational process. Many approaches has been developed for this purpose including e-learning, distant learning and recently blended learning. Many universities are adopting these approaches for teaching students. Therefore this research aims to examine attitudes of University of Jordan students toward blended learning. A sample of 250 students were selected to complete online questionnaire who have taken blended coursest hat contains aspects of knowledge about and attitude toward blended learning and a high level of preferring toward blended learning. The results of the study indicated that blended learning is useful to Students, and that most students fully understand the goals of e-learning through blended learning. In general the students have shown positive attitude towered blended learning. Furthermore, they have shown adequate information about the field of blended learning and to decide when and how to use the resources provided to them through blended learning. it also indicated that blended learning is more effective than traditional way of teaching to develop and improve the knowledge and skills. The results also indicated that electronic resources provide through blended learning is an effective way that help students to get knowledge and improve their skills, and it has tremendous effect on students life to take responsibility for their own learning process.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.295 · 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