Differences in Students’ Perceptions of the Community of Inquiry in a Blended Synchronous Delivery Mode
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
As more post-secondary institutions are turning to non-face-to-face course delivery modes to cater to the emerging needs of the student population, we have yet to find out whether students attending both at a distance and face-to-face have access to equal learning opportunities. A research was conducted in the nursing program taught in the blended synchronous delivery mode at the Cégep de la Gaspésie et des Îles over the winter 2017 semester. Using the Community of Inquiry framework and questionnaire elaborated by Garrison et al. (2000) and later revised by Shea and Bidjerano (2010), face-to-face (n=20) and at-a-distance (n=25) students’ perceptions of the four Community of Inquiry presences (teaching, social, cognitive and learner) were measured and compared. Results of the overall presences comparison reveal that face-to-face participants perceived a stronger teaching presence than students attending from a satellite site, while the distinctive elements of each presence reveal significant difference between students’ perceptions of the teaching, cognitive and learner presences. Additionally, students’ comments provide rich qualitative data that explain the quantitative results obtained.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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