Gender gaps in group listening and speaking: issues in social constructivist approaches to teaching and learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Because of its centrality to school success, social status, and workplace effectiveness, oral and aural skills development has been increasingly emphasized in Canadian curricula, classrooms and, very recently, large‐scale assessment. The corresponding emphasis on group processes and collaborative learning has aimed to address equity issues in schools. However, a 1998 Canadian assessment of students' speech communication skills ( N = 551 groups) yielded many significant gender differences in individual listening skills, group production, and self‐efficacy. The oral production in small groups of majority‐ or all‐male groups lagged significantly behind that of all‐female groups. The girl–boy gaps in oracy parallel those evident for literacy in provincial (state), national and international studies among adolescents. Implications are drawn for social constructivist pedagogy, for curricular, instructional, and evaluation practices, and for redressing gender differences.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.172 | 0.139 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".