MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323844329 · doi:10.18280/isi.280122

Blended Learning Effect on Mathematical Skills: A Meta-Analysis Study

2023· article· fr· W4323844329 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueIngénierie des systèmes d information · 2023
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematics Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisBlended learningMathematics educationPsychologyComputer scienceEducational technologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Blended learning facilitates the learning needs of students with maximum study time.Students will be more ready to accept material in class because they have previously studied the material at home.Previous research investigating the effect of implementing blended learning in improving math skills showed ambiguous results.Based on this gap, the purpose of this study was to examine the effect of blended learning in improving students' mathematical abilities using a meta-analytic research design.This meta-analytic study synthesized 37 effect sizes derived from 26 primary studies.The results of the study obtained a combined effect size of (d=1.01;p=0.00), this effect size is in the large effect category.It can be concluded that the use of blended learning has a major effect on students' mathematical abilities when compared to traditional learning.The results of the research based on the moderator variable show that the effect of the blended learning model on math skills is different based on the type of skill (Qb=20.10;p=0.00), media platforms (Qb=4.12;p=0.04), grade of education (Qb)=20.14;p=0.00), and type of publication (Qb=12.71;p=0.00).However, there was no difference based on the sample size group (Qb=0.20;p=0.65).The results of this study can enrich insights into knowledge about the effectiveness of applying blended learning in improving math skills, so that it can be used as a basis for making the right decisions for stakeholders.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.336
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.014

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.283 · 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