MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120702091 · doi:10.22329/celt.v1i0.3182

13. Evolving Toward Laughter in Learning

2008· article· en· W2120702091 on OpenAlexaffvenue
William B. Strean

Bibliographic record

VenueCollected Essays on Learning and Teaching · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCommunication in Education and Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaughterPsychologyMathematics educationPedagogyTeaching methodStudent engagementSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lowman (1995) described the relationship between teacher and student and student engagement as the two most important ingredients in learning in higher education. Humour builds teacher-student connection (Berk, 1998) and engages students in the learning process. The bond between student and teacher is essential for learning, satisfaction, and retention. Humour helps students to learn better, remember more, improve problem-solving, absorb and retain information more quickly, and reduce their anxiety about subjects like math and science. Humour also reduces classroom management problems. This essay reviews research findings that support the use of humour in teaching and it provides strategies that teachers can use to bring more humour into their classrooms.

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 categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.274
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.317 · 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.

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

Citations7
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCollected Essays on Learning and TeachingSame topicCommunication in Education and HealthcareFrench-language works237,207