Luddites or Sages? Why do Some Resist Technology/Technique in Classrooms?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Approximately 500 post baccalaureate students were surveyed about 11 pedagogical techniques to which they were exposed in a media-friendly lecture hall. The data allowed for students to be grouped into “non-likers” (those who showed an absence of positive responses to a particular method) and “likers” (those who indicated they liked the method). Web-oriented methods showed “non-liking” rates ranging from 28–42%. Ironically, while brief stories (using speech, PowerPoint text and animation) generated the least amount of “non-liking,” an audio story by a classic storyteller generated the most “non-liking.” A psychodynamic model was constructed incorporating information-intake styles, information-expression styles, and demographics to examine the determinants of such “liking”/“non-liking” via Logistic Regression analyses. The model was reliable for six of the 11 variables, and numerous predictor variables revealed the complex interplay between pedagogical technique and the type of student. Even with popular techniques like sound-bites, PowerPoint, animation, MPEG, stories, and the use of the Internet, there was a substantial rate of “non-liking.”
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".