Cited by 68Online and Blended LearningInnovative Teaching MethodsEducational Technology and E-Learning

Blended learning and traditional learning: a comparative study of college mechanics courses

Bazelais, Paul, Doleck, Tenzin·2018·Education and Information Technologies

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10639-018-9748-9

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bazelais, P., & Doleck, T.
Affiliations
McGill University (CA)
Corresponding author
Doleck, Tenzin
Venue
Education and Information Technologies
Published
2018-06-06
Volume
23
Issue
6
Pages
2889-2900
ISSN
  • 1360-2357 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7608
OpenAlex
W2806361344
Cited by
68
References
32
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 5
FWCI
21.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Education and Information Technologies (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology and E-Learning
Keywords
blended learning, traditional lecture-based instruction, mechanics course, CEGEP, conceptual change, academic performance, STEM education, teaching methods

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review