Teaching Research Methodology to Undergraduate Students Using Collaborative Learning Approach in a Blended Learning Environment at Saudi Electronic University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research methodology courses have become an important requirement for students in many undergraduate programs in Saudi Arabia. The purpose of this case study is to explore students’ perceptions of using collaborative learning (CL) in a research methodology course. This course is an undergraduate-level course that is taught in the Department of English Language and Translation at Saudi Electronic University (SEU) in a blended learning environment. Also, this study aims at understanding the effects of introducing group projects into the curriculum on students’ learning experiences from their points of view. In addition, this research sheds light on how students perceived the distribution of workload within groups. The current study employed qualitative methods to collect data by distributing a qualitative questionnaire with open-ended questions. The data were collected from 137 students enrolled in three different branches of SEU in Riyadh, Jeddah and Dammam. The data were analyzed by using thematic analysis to provide a rich description and generate themes. The findings of this study revealed that the majority of the participants believed that CL in a blended learning environment had a positive impact on their learning experience. The participants perceived CL as both beneficial and challenging. In addition, most of the participants felt that the workload was distributed equally among the group members. Based on the findings, recommendations are discussed to promote effective CL in higher education.
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 | 0.031 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| 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".