Flow, Fear, and Classroom Modality: Student Experiences in a University Environmental and Sustainability Film Course
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When the words climate change, environment, and sustainability are used in conversations today, they typically elicit engaging conversations among the current generation of university students. One common thread among these conversations is that students are looking to course faculty for answers as their fears are cause for concern. The purpose of this research was to determine if relationships existed between students in an environmental and sustainability film course through the modality in which they took the course, level of fear, and whether individuals exhibited flow experiences during the course. Fear and flow are socio-psychological constructs related to individuals having: (a) a level of fear or concern related to a specific instance or event in time, and (b) a perceived level of skill associated related to an activity (e.g., watching a film) and a level of challenge that individuals have that is associated with the same activity. Results indicate that occurrences of flow most often occurred in the online modality of learning by students. Additionally, fear levels corresponded to flow occurrences in by online modality students. This case study supports previous research that fear, and flow can be positive experiences for students when considering pedagogical practices in teaching and learning.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".