MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1490730817 · doi:10.5539/ass.v11n12p353

Teaching Conflict Resolution through General Education at University: Preparing Students to Prevent or Resolve Conflicts in a Pluralistic Society

2015· article· en· W1490730817 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEnglish Language Learning and Teaching
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConflict resolutionSyllabusPsychologyData collectionDiversity (politics)PedagogyQualitative researchMathematics educationSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research stems from an appreciation of ethnic diversity among university students, and the awareness thatdifferences can result in verbal or physical conflicts. University lecturers have an important role to play inhelping prevent and resolve student conflicts. Hence, they are required to create a climate conducive to teachingand learning, where what is taught has meaning in the student’s life. In the present research, we focused on“Civic Education”- a course meant to create awareness among students on the importance of nationalism,national identity and peaciful living within society from the Indonesian perspective. To establish how universityeducation can help to develop students into good conflict managers and to understand how they can solvedisputes arising from the differences in opinion, this research was carried out in two stages: the first stageinvolved preliminary information gathering with a view to designing a model for teaching conflict resolution.While the second stage was the implementation phase of the conflict resolution teaching model. The modelentailed discussions, practical problem solving skills, and role-playing. The activities carried out comprised ofreviewing the literature and course syllabus, collecting information, administering questionnaires, carrying outinterviews and finally formulating the model. The interviews were conducted at the campuses of universitiesprone to conflicts. The researchers employed a qualitative research approach, with the help of a case studymethod. Data collection techniques comprised of questionnaires, interviews, observations, and documentanalysis. The findings revealed that: 1) Lecturers lack knowledge and skills concerning conflict resolution andprevention among students; and 2) It was established that the implementation of the conflict resolution modelhas not been effective among students. Because they do not understand the stages involved in a peaceful conflictresolution or prevention process.

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 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)0.002
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.726
Threshold uncertainty score0.651

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.301 · 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