"Analyzing the Effects of Teaching Approach on Engagement, Satisfaction and Future Time Perspective."
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sensationalist media attention to corporate corruption and scandal has led to increased attention on the educational system preparing tomorrow’s managers and senior executives for the workplace. Despite growing interest in corporate social responsibility (CSR) at both student and institutional levels, there exists a dearth of empirical research into how to best incorporate CSR into university education. This study explores the effects of student future time perspective orientation (SFTPO) on levels of student engagement and satisfaction throughout a 12 -week course on CSR. Through the manipulation of pedagogical focus (content versus application) in a traditional face-to-face learning environment, we illustrate the dynamic nature of student SFTPO within a contextually specific domain. Multiple regression analyses testing for both individual level effects (age, gender, reason for taking the course, etc.) and learning environment effects (pedagogical focus) find lengthier SFTPO to predict greater levels of student engagement. While lengthier SFTPO predicts greater amounts of study time and deep learning strategies, it does not predict student satisfaction. Tests for indirect effects reveal that the influence of pedagogical focus on the relationships between SFTO, student engagement and satisfaction, depend on length of exposure to CSR. Study limitations and future research directions are discussed.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".