MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030975760 · doi:10.5539/ies.v5n5p185

High School Students’ Perceptions of and Attitudes towards Teacher Power in the Classroom

2012· article· en· W2030975760 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Eleni Baxevanou, Αθανάσιος Κουτρούμπας

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCommunication in Education and Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPower (physics)PerceptionPunishment (psychology)Mathematics educationPower structureStatistical analysisAbuse of powerPedagogySocial psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study examines Greek High School students’ perceptions of and attitudes towards their teachers’ power, from findings produced during a questionnaire-based study conducted in the period 2010-2011, with the participation of 1076 students attending 68 schools across Greece. Greek students provided information on how their teachers exert didactic and legitimate power in the classroom and on how students themselves react whenever their teachers abuse power. Data elaboration, statistical and factor analysis showed that, according to students, teachers exert didactic power mainly by exhibiting profound knowledge and applying effective teaching and assessment methods, while they exert legitimate power through implementing rules, inflicting punishment and controlling students’ behaviour. The study also showed that students react passively to power abuse due to fear of possible consequences, aggressively when a teacher’s power is regarded as excessively unfair, or positively when relations of trust and acceptance have been established between the teacher and the student.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.533
Teacher spread0.413 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations16
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicCommunication in Education and HealthcareFrench-language works237,207