MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

In-Depth Analysis of the Felder-Silverman Learning Style Dimensions

2007· article· en· W1976033392 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Research on Technology in Education · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLearning Styles and Cognitive Differences
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLearning stylesStyle (visual arts)Experiential learningEducational technologyDimension (graph theory)Active learning (machine learning)Computer scienceSynchronous learningCognitive styleLearning sciencesCooperative learningMathematics educationPsychologyArtificial intelligenceTeaching methodMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Learning styles are increasingly being incorporated into technology-enhanced learning. Appropriately, a great deal of recent research work is occurring in this area. As more information and details about learning styles becomes available, learning styles can be better accommodated and integrated into all aspects of educational technology. The aim of this paper is to analyse data about learning styles with respect to the Felder-Silverman learning style model (FSLSM) in order to provide a more detailed description of learning style dimensions. The analyses show the most representative characteristics of each learning style dimension as well as how representative these characteristics are. As a result, we provide additional information about the learning style dimensions of FSLSM. This information is especially important when learning styles are incorporated in technology-enhanced learning.

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)0.003
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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.741

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.425 · 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