The Predictive Role of Teaching Styles on Omani Students’ Mathematics Motivation
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 current study explored the effects of two teaching styles, authoritative and authoritarian, on students’ mathematics motivation. The two motivational constructs examined were intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Data were collected from 425 Omani 8th grade students (males = 202/females = 223, mean age = 13.44, SD = 0.79). Through two questionnaires, students reported their perceptions of their math teachers’ teaching styles, and their own motivational orientation towards mathematics. Multiple regression models were used to analyze the data. The findings suggest the two teaching styles play a role in predicting students’ mathematics motivation. An authoritative teaching style seems to be the better predictor of the two motivational constructs, when compared with an authoritarian style. Eighteen percent of the variance was accounted for in the intrinsic motivation model, compared with only five percent in the extrinsic motivation model. The educational and cultural contexts were discussed in relation to the research results.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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