MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Does Self-directed Learning Readiness Predict Undergraduate Students’ Instructional Preferences?

2022· article· en· W4220690947 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Brandon J. Justus, Shayna A. Rusticus, Brittney L. P. Stobbe

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsKwantlen Polytechnic University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPreferenceAutodidacticismMathematics educationScale (ratio)PersonalitySample (material)Learning stylesCooperative learningSocial psychologyTeaching methodMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Self-directed learning is a process by which students take the lead, with or without the help of others, in determining their learning needs and managing their learning strategies and outcomes. Relatedly, self-directed learning readiness (SDLR) looks at the attitudes, abilities, and personality characteristics necessary for self-directed learning. In study one, we shortened, and slightly modified, the SDLR scale (Fisher et al., 2001) to make it more applicable for broader use among undergraduate university students and to examine its factor structure and reliability. In a sample of 194 students, the three-factor structure of this scale (self-management, desire to learn, and self-control) was confirmed with acceptable reliability. In study two, we examined whether the modified SDLR subscales predicted a preference for a teacher-directed or student-directed class format in a sample of 256 undergraduate students. We conducted a series of four multiple linear regressions to examine whether the three dimensions of SDLR were predictive of four classroom preference styles (knowledge construction, teacher direction, cooperative learning, and passive learning). While three of these analyses were statistically significant with small to medium-effect sizes, the results minimally supported our hypotheses. We discuss whether these results indicate a lack of relationship between SDLR and teaching style or whether these results may be characteristic of the sample.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and LearningSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207