Perspective of High School Students and Teachers on Good Teaching: A Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a widespread interest in studying factors that contribute to improving educational quality, such as good teaching practices. For this reason, this article intends to analyze the perception of high school students and teachers, regarding the characteristics of good teachers, identifying pedagogical practices that, from the perspective of these educational agents, favor quality teaching and subsequent learning. of the student body A qualitative methodology, of the case study type, was chosen. As a data collection technique, 8 semi-structured interviews were carried out, 4 of them directed towards students and 4 towards teachers. Among the main findings, students and teachers highlight that good teaching is observed in a didactic-disciplinary domain, affective and value-based practices, effective evaluative competencies, the manifestation of optimal leadership, and contextualizing the teaching-learning process depending on the characteristics of the student body. In conclusion, being a good teacher implies having extensive pedagogical and disciplinary knowledge, which must be optimally submitted in the teaching-learning process, which demands a didactic domain. All this, placing contextualization and evaluation as key processes.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".