A Comparative Analysis of Students Learning Styles: A Case Study in Oman and Iran
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Establishing a conductive learning environment constitutes a primary focus within any educational framework. Recognizing the role of students’ learning styles in educational processes, the present study endeavors to discern the favored learning styles among students in two distinct geographical contexts namely Iran and Oman.  Grasha and Reichmann’s learning style survey was employed for this purpose. In total, 206 participants (85 Iranian and 121 Omani students) responded to the questionnaire. The findings of the study indicate that the prevalent learning style among both Iranian and Omani students is the Dependent style, wherein students depend on instructions provided by the teacher rather than exhibiting innovation in completing assigned tasks. This observation exhibits the identically of teaching methods and approaches adopted within educational institutions in two distinct contexts. In other words, this similarity underscores how teaching methods and approaches can shape students’ learning style preferences. Additionally, a comparative examination of six learning styles among two gender groups in Iran and Oman reveals that the predominant style for both gender groups is the Dependent style. Whereas Omani boys demonstrated a greater inclination towards Cooperative and Participant styles compared to girls, Iranian males are more Independent and less Avoidant than Iranian females. Furthermore, the result of Chi-square test shows no meaningful relationship between the gender variable and students learning styles in two geolocaitons.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it