STUDENT AND INSTRUCTOR SATISFACTION AND ENGAGEMENT WITH BLENDED LEARNING IN CHEMICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN
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

 Abstract – The capstone Chemical Engineering Course
 was used to pilot blended learning as part of an ongoing
 digital learning initiative at the University of Alberta. A
 blended learning course structure was designed,
 implemented, evaluated, and redesigned using a
 Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB)
 Graduate Attribute (GA) based continuous improvement
 process over a two-year pilot period. Graduate Attributes
 were measured using student self-assessments, instructor
 assessments, and through an arms length study on student
 engagement and satisfaction conducted with student
 cohorts. This contribution focuses on the results of
 independent interviews conducted with student cohorts
 during the pilot period, instructor interviews, and the data
 analysis of the student satisfaction and engagement
 surveys. Instructors were satisfied with the increased
 interaction with students during class time even with
 increased enrollment. Student satisfaction was higher for
 students with lower self reported GPAs, and student
 engagement improved in the second year of the pilot.
 Details of these and other outcomes are presented and
 discussed.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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