An exploratory study of professors' changes in conceptions of teaching in relation to use of the clasroom communication systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to investigate professors' changes in their conceptions of teaching before and after use of Classroom Communication System (CCS) questions and feedback and to identify factors relating to these changes. The CCS studies provide evidence that professors using clickers may enhance students engagement and learning outcomes and suggest that professors' conceptions of teaching might play a crucial role in the process of teaching. However, there are no empirical studies to explain how professors changed in their conceptions of teaching when using CCS questions and feedback, which factors might be related to those changes, and the nature of the relationship between their use of clickers and their conceptions of teaching. This study empirically explores professors' changes in conceptions, and factors related to changes when using CCS questions and feedback. This study used a mixed method approach to look at professors (n=21) changes in conceptions by using the Approaches to Teaching Inventory – Revised (ATI-R). A repeated measures ANOVA was used to investigate their changes in conceptions by group. Individual case analyses were conducted for interviewed professors to explore how their conceptions changed and identify factors involved in using CCS questions and feedback. Professors' conceptions of teaching did change when they used CCS questions and feedback. The nature of the relationship between using the CCS and professors' conceptions of teaching was determined to be disruptive. Furthermore, two factors, (1) professors' prior pedagogical training experience and (2) discipline were related to their changes when they used CCS questions and feedback. Finally, emotions experienced when teaching with clickers may play a role in the process of changes in conceptions of teaching. This study provides a better understanding of changes in professors' conceptions of teaching when using CCS questions and feedback. It also enhances our understanding of the interplay between identified factors and changes in professors' conceptions.
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 | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".