MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3174911075 · doi:10.1111/jcal.12578

Students and instructors perspective on blended synchronous learning in a Canadian graduate program

2021· article· en· W3174911075 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computer Assisted Learning · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersCanadian Heritage
KeywordsVideoconferencingBlended learningContext (archaeology)Perspective (graphical)Distance educationQualitative researchMedical educationPsychologyHigher educationData collectionAsynchronous communicationPedagogyEducational technologyComputer scienceMultimediaSociologyMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Blended synchronous learning (BSL) represents several contexts that enable to bring remote students into the classroom, in real time, by the means of videoconferencing, web conferencing and virtual world. As BSL seems to be more and more implemented in many higher education institutions, especially in the current context of the COVID‐19 pandemic, and given the recent interest and scarce published research in BSL, more studies are needed on this kind of learning. The purpose of this research was to explore students and instructors perspective regarding their experience in BSL, according to three dimensions: pedagogy, technology and organization/logistics. To meet the study objective, a qualitative methodology was adopted. The study participants were remote students ( n = 4) and face‐to‐face students ( n = 4) enrolled in a graduate program in education offering only blended synchronous courses, and instructors ( n = 5) in this program. Semi‐structured interviews were selected as the data collection method. Nine sub‐themes in reference to the three dimensions emerged from the study participants. They have also highlighted some challenges associated with BSL. The results reported in this study should provide faculties and higher education administrators with additional information and guidance, based on empirical data, on the use of BSL if they wish to implement it in academic programs. Moreover, in regard to the challenges revealed by the study participants, the results will permit to surpass the obstacles when implementing BSL successfully.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.610
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.325 · 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