Curriculum Development Based on Online and Face-to-Face Learning in a Saudi Arabian University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research examined curriculum development in an academic program with respect to graduate education-level methods of teaching. Numerous studies have suggested that educational curricula should be redeveloped based on Web 2.0 technologies. The purpose of this research is to analyze student perspectives regarding curriculum development based on their online and face-to-face learning experiences in a Saudi Arabian university. This research surveyed 95 graduate students in a Saudi university to examine their perceptions of curriculum development based on online and face-to-face learning. The research objective was to determine students’ opinions regarding the performance and challenges of the developed curriculum. The research design in this study was based on a qualitative analysis study of an online survey. The survey data were analyzed and showed a consensus in favor of online learning courses. The results show that online students highlighted the flexibility, accessibility, and balance of time management in their personal and professional life during the course yet the face-to-face students emphasized that their main reason for enrolling in face-to-face classes involved having better class interaction with peers and faculties.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".