Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this case study was to explore, describe, and compare the teaching styles practiced by faculty members at Loyalist College (permission to name received) with those articulated in college documents, and espoused by academic deans and faculty. This exploratory descriptive study focused on the practiced teaching styles as self-reported by participating faculty at Loyalist College, compared to the formally espoused approach to teaching adult learners at this College. Furthermore, this research identified trends of practiced teaching styles of participating faculty regarding their demographic profile, educational philosophy, and level of participation in professional development activities. To explore, describe, analyze and compare the approach to teaching adult learners at Loyalist College, a mixed method design was utilized through college document analysis, the use of interviews and Conti’s (1982) Principles of Adult Learning Scale (PALS) survey. The quantitative data identified that participating faculty at Loyalist College scored an overall teacher-centred practice, but upon deeper analysis, scores indicated a commitment to a practice that is closer to both teacher and learner-centred. The qualitative data analysis identified that college documents, academic deans and participating faculty espouse more of a learner-centred compared to teacher-centred approach to teaching adult learners at Loyalist College. Comparatively, in ranking of scores, an increased teacher-centred practice was the most popular teaching style (n=15); a very strong learner-centred practice was next (n=8); four faculty identified a very strong teacher-centred teaching style and the same number identified an increased learner-centred approach; finally, one faculty identified an extreme learner-centred approach and one faculty identified an eclectic practice. No faculty at Loyalist College identified an extreme teacher-centred practice. Although the majority of participating faculty were teacher-centred, the scores also indicated a commitment to learner-centred practices. Twenty (60.6%) of participating faculty scored within one standard deviation. Although the findings of this research are not generalizable, they may have implications for practice, policy and further research to incorporate best practices in teaching adult learners at Loyalist College and possibly even the Ontario College system.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".