University Educators' Instructional Choices and Their Learning Styles within a Lesson Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on learning styles often focuses on the learning style of the student; however, the learning style of the educator may affect instructional choices and hinder learning. Few studies have addressed the lack of knowledge that exists in universities with respect to educators’ learning styles and a lesson framework (development, delivery, and debriefing). This sequential mixed methods study explored university educators’ conscious, reflective instructional choices as they related to learning styles application within a lesson. Two theoretical and one conceptual frameworks drew on Kolb’s experiential learning theory, Bloom’s, Reigeluth’s, and Gagné’s instructional design theories and models, and Fiddler’s and Marienau’s events model of learning from experience. Research questions addressed learning styles, usage patterns, instructional choices, and reflections of university educators within a lesson framework. An online inventory recorded 38 university educators’ instructional choices, learning styles, and learning styles patterns within the framework of a lesson. Interviews were conducted with 7 of the university educators to document their conscious reflections regarding their instructional choices. Results from the inventory identified that more than 56% of university educators applied the accommodation learning style during the stages of development and delivery of a lesson, and 34% applied the assimilation learning style during the debriefing stage, which were supported by detailed reflections about their instructional choices in relation to their learning styles. The knowledge acquired about learning styles applications during a lesson framework may benefit university educators’ teaching, which are foundational to affecting positive social change within academic and social communities.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".