Learning considered within a cultural context : Confucian and Socratic approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Confucian-Socratic framework provides a structure for analyzing culture-influenced aspects of academic learning. It is argued that these ancient exemplars model approaches to learning that continue to differentiate students within a modern Canadian postsecondary context. Specifically, it is argued that Chinese cultural influence increases the likelihood that a student will report Confucian learning beliefs and behaviors and that Western cultural influence increases the likelihood that a student will report Socratic learning beliefs and behaviors. Socrates valued private and public questioning of widely accepted knowledge and expected students to evaluate others' beliefs and to generate and consider their own hypotheses. Confucius valued effortful and pragmatic acquisition of essential knowledge. Confucius also valued poetic summary and behavioral reform. Two self-report studies, one (pilot) expert study, and one work sample study assess the utility of this framework in a Canadian context. The self-report studies provide evidence that the framework is reflective of modern cultural differences as expressed in a Western postsecondary context; however, the work sample study produced mainly null results. Consequences of cultural differences in Western postsecondary contexts are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".