Expressions of Trust: How University STEM Teachers Describe the Role of Trust in their Teaching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Positive teacher-student and student-student relationships are among the most significant factors contributing to learning, motivation, wellbeing, and graduation rates in higher education. Trust is commonly understood as a key element for the development and sustenance of positive educational relationships, yet relatively little empirical research investigates trust in higher education classrooms. In this study, we explore how science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) teachers (n=29) from universities in four countries (Canada, New Zealand, Sweden, and USA) describe their intentions and actions related to trust in one of the large enrollment courses they teach. We consider the ways that teachers understand and value trust in their teaching, and what this might suggest about how they approach trust-building with and among their students. We report on four broad approaches to trust expressed by teachers in this study, framed as teacher statements to students: “trust me,” “trust yourself,” “trust each other,” and “I trust you.” This research has implications for teachers, SoTL scholars, and academic developers in higher education.
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 | 0.010 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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".