MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170205952 · doi:10.5539/elt.v8n1p1

Influence of Instructor Personality on Student Evaluation of Teaching: A Comparison between English Majors and Non-English Majors

2014· article· en· W2170205952 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Setsuko Mori, Yoshitaka Tanabe

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicStudent Assessment and Feedback
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyNeuroticismPersonalityExtraversion and introversionClass (philosophy)Mathematics educationScale (ratio)Big Five personality traitsSocial psychologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

160 non-English major students studying at a four-year university and 193 English major students studying at a career college of foreign language in Japan completed a questionnaire regarding instruction and instructor personality. The purpose of the current study was to examine whether the students’ instructional and personality ratings predicted their general evaluation of course. This study also investigated whether the relations between instructional and personality ratings and the general course evaluation varied by major. A significant correlation was found between the instructional scale and the overall evaluation of the course regardless of students’ majors: The more the students found the class interesting and was appropriately managed, the higher the overall evaluation. However, the findings indicate that while teacher’s extroversion, thoughtfulness and neuroticism mattered to the non-English major group when evaluating the overall effectiveness of the class, teacher personality did not influence the English major group. The authors believe the findings of the present study could contribute to a better understanding of the nature of student evaluations that have always been a source of controversy, and sometimes discontent during their history.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language TeachingSame topicStudent Assessment and FeedbackFrench-language works237,207