Beyond the Books: Teacher Practices and Perceptions of Teaching Caring and Curiosity
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
Caring and curiosity are fundamental to learning and working well with others. Individuals who are both caring andcurious have empathetic curiosity and want to know about other people and take the initiative to learn aboutperspectives, needs, and goals of those around them. Empathetic curiosity can be enhanced through activities inschools. The goal of our project was to determine teachers’ perceptions and practices associated with teaching andlearning caring and curiosity. The data we collected from 183 K-12 teachers revealed positive perceptions ofteaching caring and curiosity. We found that the instructional methods used to teach caring shifted with the curricularcontent. Our research also revealed that the focus of curiosity changed when the teaching concentrated on contentrather than the instruction method. The teachers relatively limited focus on caring for others when teaching caringsuggests that they may not be considering empathetic curiosity as a learning goal. Based on our findings we interpretour results and provide implications for teaching and learning.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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