The Relationship between Childrenâs, Adolescentsâ, and Adultsâ Epistemological Development and Their Evaluation of Different Teaching Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study assessed the relationship between children’s, adolescents’, and adults’\nepistemological development and their evaluations of different teaching methods.\nParticipants were presented with different teaching scenarios in which the domain\n(scientific or moral), nature (controversial or noncontroversial), and method (lecture or\ndiscussion) were varied to determine if this affected participants’ rating of the scenarios.\nEpistemological development was assessed in three domains: aesthetic, value (moral),\nand physical truth (science). Ninety-six participants (7–8-, 10–11-, 13–14-year-olds, and\ncollege students) were included in the study. In general, it was discovered that older\nparticipants (13-14-year-olds and college students) preferred discussion methods, while\nyounger participants (7-8 and 10-11-year-olds) did not discriminate between lectures or\ndiscussions. However, all participants took the domain, nature, and method into\nconsideration. Epistemological development was predictive of participants’ preference\nfor teaching methods, but only in the value domain.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".