MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Influence of Attendance, Communication, and Distractions on the Student Learning Experience using Blended Synchronous Learning

2020· article· en· W3096288907 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovations in Educational Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttendancePsychologyBlended learningMedical educationThe InternetFace-to-faceAsynchronous communicationMathematics educationMultimediaComputer scienceEducational technologyMedicineWorld Wide WebTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A second-year engineering course at the authors’ institution was offered via a blended synchronous learning (BSL) method of delivery whereby students could choose to attend lectures live (face-to-face) or remotely (via a synchronous, live stream over the internet) during a summer semester. Survey and grade data were collected across two years of this offering. Attendance, interaction, communication with the instructor, and general distractions were main themes affecting the student learning experience both positively and negatively. Specifically, students found the remote access, the ability to ask questions, the teaching style, and having more time during the summer semester as positive aspects to their learning experience. Negative influences on their learning experience related primarily to their busy work schedules, technological issues associated with BSL, and typical summer distractions. Critically, our results indicate that attendance is a key indicator of student grades (after correcting for GPA), regardless of whether students attended lectures remotely or face-to-face: students attending more than 75% of the lectures performed on average 12% better than students who did not (p=0.0093). The consensus in the student comments was that the remote attendance option allowed students to attend in situations where the alternative was no attendance at all, implying that the potential gain in grades due to higher attendance may outweigh any potential impact the mode of attendance may have. Overall, a synchronous, remote attendance option may provide a lifeline to students who would not otherwise be able to attend a course, and (assuming a mode of interaction, such as the synchronous chat, is available) students do not perceive remote attendance as having a negative influence on their learning.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.221
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0280.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.335 · 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