MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Survey of Teacher-Student Style Mismatches

2012· article· en· W1803071929 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

VenueHigher education of social science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLearning Styles and Cognitive Differences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStyle (visual arts)Mathematics educationPsychologyLearning stylesProcess (computing)PedagogyComputer scienceVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An important aspect of the differences among students hasto do with their learning style. As with learning style, theconcept of teaching style is also important since a stylisticmismatch between teacher and student may determinehow well they get along, with important consequencesfor the learning process. This study is intended to findif there are serious teacher-student style mismatches incollege teaching. Four teachers and one hundred fiftysevencollege students are involved in this study. All ofthem are asked to complete the questionnaire designedby Juan Du (2003) to measure their teaching styles andlearning styles. Besides the questionnaire the presentauthor has designed an interview so as to get qualitativedata concerning the learning styles, the teaching stylesand mismatches between them. Key words: Individual difference; Learning style;Teaching style

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.350 · 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