MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Context Of Blended Learning Environments: Lessons We Have Learned

2024· article· en· W4400405276 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sandra P. Hirst, Carole-Lynne LeNavenec

Bibliographic record

VenuePapers on postsecondary learning and teaching. · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlended learningContext (archaeology)Computer scienceEducational technologyPsychologyMathematics educationGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Let us lay the context for our conversation: My senior level undergraduate nursing students, all of whom were doing their clinical experience at health care centres in Calgary, appreciated not having to travel to the University after their clinical day to have a face-to-face hour session with myself as their instructor. In previous years, we used a platform called Blackboard, and then Desire to Learn. Each student described what they had learned that day. When we had our face-to-face weekly session on non-clinical days, they reviewed their peer group projects. In providing course feedback, students emphasized that the online approach facilitated their peer group learning and enhanced their confidence in doing classroom presentations.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePapers on postsecondary learning and teaching.Same topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207