MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W186634891 · doi:10.20429/ijsotl.2011.050110

Inquiry Learning: Level, Discipline, Class Size, What Matters?

2011· article· en· W186634891 on OpenAlexaff
Susan Vajoczki, Susan Watt, Michelle M. Vine, Rose Liao

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClass (philosophy)Mathematics educationSociologyPedagogyVariation (astronomy)Science learningClass sizePsychologyScience educationEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inquiry learning is a pedagogical approach that focuses on the processes and skills required to conduct research. It is a pedagogical approach that has been demonstrated to have positive learning outcomes. McMaster University has been committed to this form of learning for more than ten years in three of the faculties on campus (i.e., Humanities, Science and Social Sciences). This commitment has been in the creation of stand-alone, small class size first year inquiry classes. The current research, involving document analysis of 545 course outlines from the Faculty of Social Sciences demonstrates that inquiry learning is concentrated in first and fourth year primarily with modest amounts in second and third year courses. Results reveal cross-discipline variation. Some disciplines exhibit higher levels of inquiry (i.e., Social Work, Labour Studies and Political Science) than others (i.e., Gerontology, Geography and Anthropology). Although inquiry was more likely to occur in small classes there were examples of inquiry learning in classes with more than 250 students.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.473
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.271 · 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.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations40
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and LearningSame topicEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207