Student Perceptions on Blended/Flipped and Traditional Face-to-Face: A Course Redesign Assessment
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
The blended and flipped class is often considered the most student-centered type of learning as it promotes deep and life-long learning. Using qualitative and quantitative data from anonymous surveys completed by students in two different introductory classes, one blended and flipped (N=56) and the other traditional lecture (N=74) taught by the first author during the same semester, this study reveals active learning in the blended and flipped class contributes to those students’: 1) positive perceptions of usefulness of course material; 2) perceptions of more time spent on their class; and 3) preference for blended and flipped learning. These findings provide for a deeper understanding of the results of an earlier study with these same cohorts where the blended and flipped learning outperformed the traditional face-to-face students on a pre-posttest. It also provides insight into the usefulness of blended learning and can help assuage fears that students are short changed when they don’t have face-to-face instruction. This article closes with suggestions for instructors wishing to pursue a flipped and blended classroom model.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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