MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402752372 · doi:10.5539/jedp.v14n2p95

The Role of Prior Online Learning Experience in Student Learning under ERT – A Comparative Study

2024· article· en· W4402752372 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Liang-Hsuan Chen, Elena Senatorova

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Educational and Developmental Psychology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Learning Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyOnline learningMathematics educationComputer scienceMultimedia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The pandemic provided great research opportunities in learning/teaching. How was students’ learning experience under emergency remote teaching (ERT)? The purposes of this study are to explore students’ learning experience, and to observe any differences under two lenses – internationalization and prior online learning. An online study was conducted in the Management/Business programs of a major Canadian research university and four Russian universities in 2021. A total of 683 students participated in this study, two-thirds of which were Canadian and one-third were Russian. The degree of internationalization (e.g. international students) is higher in Canadian universities, while a higher percentage of Russian students had prior online learning experience before the pandemic in this study. The research findings showed that the degree of internationalization did not play a significant role in the difference of student learning; while the prior learning experience played a crucial role under ERT. Russian students adjusted better to the new learning mode, reported a more positive view of online learning, had a better learning experience and performance, and had a preference to continue with online learning post-pandemic. This research sheds light on students’ preference for online learning that was influenced by prior exposure to online 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.433 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Educational and Developmental PsychologySame topicHigher Education Learning PracticesFrench-language works237,207