Flipped Classrooms and Peer-to-Peer Learning in a Construction Management Course
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a case study of the implementation of a combined peer-to-peer learning and flipped classroom approach in a course within a baccalaureate degree program in Construction Project Management. In a flipped classroom, students review the learning materials before class, complete lower-level cognitive tasks outside of the classroom, and engage in higher-level cognitive tasks during class time. While there are numerous advantages to flipping the classroom compared to traditional teaching, the strategy becomes ineffective if students cannot complete the assigned tasks before class and lack motivation to participate in higher-level learning during the class. To ensure motivation and continuous engagement, a combination of strategies was employed, including peer-to-peer learning and teaching, granting credits for classroom participation and peer evaluation, and establishing milestones for continuous evaluation of outputs. Over the years, the percentage of students who agreed that the course's delivery method provided opportunities for active participation in discussions and collaborative activities increased from 80% to 100%. Similarly, the percentage of students who completed the readings and homework on time increased from 85% to 100%.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it