Perceptions of Chinese Students on Online Learning versus Face-to-Face Learning in the Bachelor of Science in Rehabilitation Science Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This research project aimed to investigate the perceptions of online learning versus face-to-face learning of Bachelor of Science in Rehabilitation Science (BSRS) Program students in Cohorts 2017, 2018 and 2019 in China. Methods: This quantitative study utilized a cross-sectional descriptive survey design involving 177 students from the BSRS Program. A link to the Qualtrics survey, which included a consent page, was sent to participants via social media platforms. Pilot testing of interviews was conducted to get an overlook of students’perceptions regarding both learning modalities. Survey questions were constructed according to the results of that pilot study. Results: Students preferred face-to-face to online learning (47% vs. 14%). Half of the respondents (45%) were equally motivated by face-to-face and online learning. Face-to-face learning was the most effective learning method (45%). Conclusion: Students gained more knowledge from face-to-face learning than online learning but concentrated well in both online and face-to-face classes. Face-to-face learning was the most popular teaching method and will continue to be in the near future, especially in Health Science Professions 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 | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 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".