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 childrenâs, adolescentsâ, and adultsâ\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 participantsâ rating of the scenarios.\nEpistemological development was assessed in three domains: aesthetic, value (moral),\nand physical truth (science). Ninety-six participants (7â8-, 10â11-, 13â14-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 participantsâ 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 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".