GOOD PRACTICES FOR VIRTUAL CLASSROOM IN UNIVERSITARY BLENDED LEARNING BUENAS PRÁCTICAS DE AULAS VIRTUALES EN LA DOCENCIA UNIVERSITARIA SEMIPRESENCIAL
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
<!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" lang="en-US" align="JUSTIFY">We present the design and results of a study conducted at the University of La Laguna (ULL) to identify best practices in virtual classrooms in Higher Education developed in the form of blended learning. The study was conducted in the first quarter of 2008 and analyzed a large sample of virtual classrooms (N = 107) in the Virtual Campus of the University during the period 2005-07. This article presents six examples of virtual classrooms by scientific fields characterized by the incorporation of information resources, communication and experiential learning. <br><!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="JUSTIFY">En este artículo presentamos el diseño y resultados de un estudio realizado en la Universidad de La Laguna (ULL) destinado a identificar buenas prácticas de aulas virtuales en la docencia universitaria desarrolladas bajo la modalidad de <em>blended learning</em> o enseñanza semipresencial. El estudio se desarrolló en el primer trimestre del año 2008 y analizó una importante muestra de las aulas virtuales (N= 107) existentes en el Campus Virtual de dicha universidad en el periodo 2005-07. Se seleccionaron seis ejemplos de aulas virtuales, clasificados por campos científicos, caracterizadas por la incorporación de recursos de información, de comunicación y de aprendizaje experiencial.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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