Creative Problem Solving How Do Undergraduates Perceive the Teaching Practice of Their Professors?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research question was inquiring the undergraduates’ perception of their professors’ practice regarding whetherthey make use of the creative problem solving (CPS) as a competence for teaching. The study was performed in apublic university located in the urban area of Merida City, Yucatan, Mexico, where a total of 247 undergraduatesfrom the Education, Economy and Psychology schools participated. A Teacher Practice Perception Scale (TPPS) wasused to know how undergraduates perceive the professor’s practice under the creative problem solving, thefacilitating and hindering factors for developing creative solutions, the importance of CPS for the curriculum andproposals to develop CPS in the university instructional practice. The results show that (a) all undergraduatesperceive CPS at a high level of importance, (b) Psychology undergraduates perceive a medium-high use of CPS bytheir professors, and (c) Psychology undergraduates perceive at a higher level the facilitating factors of this process.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".