MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1897431546 · doi:10.4471/ijep.2013.23

Eye of the Beholder: Investigating the Interplay between Inquiry Role Diversification and Social Perspective Taking

2013· article· en· W1897431546 on OpenAlexafffund
Cheryl L. Walker, Bruce M. Shore, Diana Tabatabai

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Educational Psychology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)PsychologyDiversification (marketing strategy)PersonalityPedagogyPerspective-takingMathematics educationSocial psychologyEmpathy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Students and teachers engage in specific roles in classrooms, and within inquiry classrooms, these roles tend to be more varied compared to traditional settings. Teachers may take on traditional student roles including the role of learner, and students, for example, take on the additional role of question asker, traditionally reserved for the role of a teacher. Several of these roles are specific to perspective taking, in particular, social perspective taking (SPT). SPT is critical to successful social interactions and, because group work occurs frequently within inquiry-based teaching and learning environments, a better understanding of SPT roles is required. SPT roles within two different inquiry classrooms were closely examined through audiorecorded group interactions. Additional data were collected in the form of questionnaires, interviews, student and teacher log responses, and field notes. Two teachers and eight students participated. Social perspective-taking roles were dynamic and susceptible to influences including the nature of the classroom activities and instructional choices, student personality differences, and group-work dynamics. All participants adopted SPT roles, however, students who played an active role in choosing their work partners and who were assigned a task that required a consideration of the audience’s understanding tended to adopt more Imagine Other roles as opposed to Imagine Self roles and also adopted more emotionally-based SPT roles compared to students in teacher-formed groups who were assigned more cognitively-based assignments. Implications for researchers, consultants, and students and teachers were discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.384
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.383 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations15
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Educational PsychologySame topicEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207