Comparisons of learning preferences in an engineering program
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The results are presented of the responses of first year engineering students, fourth year engineering students and faculty to an Index of Learning Styles. This self-report forced-choice instrument classifies the learning preferences of the respondents on four scales: active/reflective, sensing/intuition, visual/verbal and sequential/global. The faculty learning preferences compared with both groups of engineering students were significantly more Reflective, Intuitive, and Visual. The faculty preferences were also significantly less Sequential than the first year student group. Although the faculty ILS learning preference was strongly Visual, even more Visual than the students', they mostly teach in a Verbal style, probably because it is easier to do so. The teaching and presentation of engineering courses would be more effective for the majority of students if they contained elements which appealed to all learning styles, which, these results suggest would require them to incorporate and emphasise more Active, Sensing, Visual and Global components.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it