A Meta-Analysis of Teacher and Student-Centered Practices and Processes in Undergraduate Science Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This meta-analysis investigates the effects of four instructional dimensions rated on a scale from more Teacher-centered (T-C) to more Student-centered (S-C) plus several coded moderator variables on the achievement of undergraduate students in science education courses. More student-centered conditions served as the ‘treatment’ while more teacher-centered conditions were considered the ‘control.’ Hedges’ g, operationalized as the adjusted standardized differences between treatment and control means, served as the outcome measure. The weighted average difference between groups was g̅ = 0.34, k = 140 (random effects analysis), indicating an overall difference in favor of student-centered instruction. Out of four rated dimensions (Pacing, Teacher’s Role, Flexibility, and Adaptation) only Flexibility was significant in metaregression as a negative predictor of effect size. Two demographic variables (i.e., class size & subject matter), and one instructional moderator variables (i.e., technology use) were also significant when added to Flexibility, producing a model that accounted for 36% of total variation in effect size.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".