Open Access
SHS Web Conf.
Volume 179, 2023
2023 6th International Conference on Humanities Education and Social Sciences (ICHESS 2023)
Article Number 02011
Number of page(s) 8
Section Disciplinary Education Exploration and Interdisciplinary Communication
Published online 14 December 2023
  1. He, L. (2015, November). Exploring Affective Factors Influencing Spoken English Teaching in College. In 2015 2nd International Conference on Education, Language, Art and Intercultural Communication (ICELAIC-15) (pp. 35–38). Atlantis Press. [Google Scholar]
  2. Wang, D. P., Song, X. H., Hao, S. Z., Zhou, J. E., Yang, B., & Liu, Y. N. (2015, August). Analyzing the Problems of Independent College TeachingQuality and its Influencing Factors. In 2015 International Conference on Management Science and Management Innovation (MSMI 2015) (pp. 112116). Atlantis Press. [Google Scholar]
  3. Li, A., Liu, K., & Ge, Z. (2015). Application of Data Mining in the Colleges’ in-Class Teaching Quality Evaluation System. J. Comput., 10(3), 166–175. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. Deslauriers, L., McCarty, L. S., Miller, K., Callaghan, K., & Kestin, G. (2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(39), 1925119257. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. Theobald, E. J., Hill, M. J., Tran, E., Agrawal, S., Arroyo, E. N., Behling, S., & Freeman, S. (2020). Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(12), 64766483. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. Liu, J. (2017, December). Perspective of Innovative Changes in Classroom Teaching from the Satisfaction of Students’ classroom Teaching in Colleges and Universities. In 4th International Conference on Education, Management, Arts, Economics and Social Science (ICEMAESS 2017) (pp. 384–388). Atlantis Press. [Google Scholar]
  7. Sohm, Rudolph, (1892) Systematisch handbuch der deutschen rechtswissenschaft: Kirchenrecht, Part 8 [Systematic handbook of German law: Canon law, Part 8], herausgeben von Karl Binding [published by Karl Binding]. Leipzig: Duncker and Humblot. [Google Scholar]
  8. Weber, M. (1947) Legitimate authority and bureaucracy. In: The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation, pp. 328–340. [Google Scholar]
  9. House, R. J., & Baetz, M. L. (1979). Leadership: Some empirical generalizations and new research directions. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. [Google Scholar]
  10. Niu, F., Zhang, H., & Cceoc. (2011). The Application of the Teacher Leadership in the Information Teaching. Paper presented at the CONFERENCE ON CREATIVE EDUCATION (CCE2011). [Google Scholar]
  11. Wang, D. P., Song, X. H., Hao, S. Z., Zhou, J. E., Yang, B., & Liu, Y. N. (2015). Analyzing the Problems of Independent College Teaching Quality and its Influencing Factors. Paper presented at the PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2015 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MANAGEMENT SCIENCE AND MANAGEMENT INNOVATION. [Google Scholar]
  12. Yang, Y. P. (2013, August). Rebuild the Charm of University Classroom. In 2013 International Conference on Educational Research and Sports Education (ERSE 2013) (pp. 139–142). Atlantis Press. [Google Scholar]
  13. Whalen, T. (2014). Engendering Charisma: k. d. Lang and the comic frame. Intertexts, 18(1), 9–28. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. Zikhali, J., & Maphosa, C. (2012). Exploring College Students’ Attitudes towards Female Lecturers’ Competence in Teacher Education Colleges in Masvingo Province, Zimbabwe. The Anthropologist, 14(5), 393–399. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. DfEE (Department for Education and Employment). (2000) Statistics of Education: teachers of England and Wales (London, The Stationery Ofice). [Google Scholar]
  16. Ye Yanyu. (2021). Gender Differences in the Career Development of Faculties: Cultural, Institutional and Organizational Characteristics (Ph.D. Dissertation, Zhejiang University). [Google Scholar]
  17. Coffey, A. & Acker, S. (1991) ‘Girlies on the warpath’: addressing gender in initial teacher education, Gender and Education, 3, pp. 249–261. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and psychological measurement, 53(3), 801–813 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. Bunglowala, A., & Bunglowala, A. (2015). Nonverbal communication: An integral part of teaching learning process. International Journal of Research in Advent Technology, 1, 371–375. [Google Scholar]
  20. Kajita, M., Takahashi, T., Hayashi, K., Fukuharu, M., Sato, J., & Sato, Y. (2002). Self‐esteem and mental health characteristics especially among lean students surveyed by University Personality Inventory. Psychiatry and clinical neurosciences, 56(2), 123–129 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  21. Chen, S., & Zhang, C. (2017, April). The Quality Evaluation System Research Of Applied Undergraduate Colleges And Universities Practice Teaching Under The Background Of Transformation Development. In 2017 International Conference on Innovations in Economic Management and Social Science (IEMSS 2017) (pp. 333–337). Atlantis Press. [Google Scholar]
  22. Hartman, B. J. (1966). Personality Factors of the Cattell “16 PF Test” and Hypnotic Susceptibility. Psychological Reports, 19(3), 1337–1338. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. Veldt, N., Benson, A. R., & Kleinberg, J. (2021). Higher-order homophily is combinatorially impossible. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.11818. [Google Scholar]
  24. Saka, M. (2020). Evulations of science teachers regarding the classes of school experience and teaching practices. Elementary Education Online, 18(1), 127–127. [Google Scholar]
  25. Kang, H. S., Kim, E. K., Choi, S. Y., & Noh, T. H. (2010). The Influences of Teaching Practices upon Preservice Elementary School Teachers’ Self-images of Science Teaching. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 30(2), 261–274. [Google Scholar]
  26. Sulzer, M. A. (2015). Exploring dialogic teaching with middle and secondary English language arts teachers: a reflexive phenomenology. The University of Iowa. [Google Scholar]
  27. Xiong, T. & Li, Q. (2020)., I Can‟ t Have My Cake and eat it too‟: A Narrative Inquiry of a Chinese Female Teacher‟ s Gendered Identity. International Journal of Humanities, Social Sciences and Education, 7(4), 95–109. [Google Scholar]
  28. Xia, N., & Yang, Y. (2021). Comprehensive Evaluation for Teaching Quality of College Faculty. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 16(18). [Google Scholar]
  29. Akcaoğlu, M. Ö., Mor, E., & Külekçi, E. (2023). The mediating role of metacognitive awareness in the relationship between critical thinking and selfregulation. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 47, 101187. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  30. Dökmecioğlu, B., Tas, Y., & Yerdelen, S. (2022). Predicting students’ critical thinking dispositions in science through their perceptions of constructivist learning environments and metacognitive selfregulation strategies: a mediation analysis. Educational Studies, 48(6), 809–826. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  31. Eccles, J. S. Barber., Bonnie L. Stone, Margaret Hunt, James. (2003). Extracurricular Activities and Adolescent Development. Journal of Social Issues, 59(4), 865. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  32. Grosser, M. M., & Nel, M. (2013). The relationship between the critical thinking skills and the academic language proficiency of prospective teachers. South African journal of education, 33(2), 1–17. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  33. Baker, M. A., & Kim, K. (2018). The role of language, appearance, and smile on perceptions of authenticity versus rapport. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 74, 171–179. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  34. Wang, Y. (2022). To be expressive or not: the role of teachers’ emotions in students’ learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 737310. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  35. Lim, F. V., O’Halloran, K. L., & Podlasov, A. (2012). Spatial pedagogy: Mapping meanings in the use of classroom space. Cambridge journal of education, 42(2), 235–251. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  36. Mills, M., Martino, W. & Lingard, B. (2004). Attracting, recruiting and retaining male teachers: Policy issues in the male teacher debate. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 25(3), 355–369. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  37. Givens, D. B. (2002). Nonverbal dictionary. [Google Scholar]
  38. Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension (Vol. 609). Anchor. [Google Scholar]
  39. Martin, J.R., & Stenglin, M. (2007). Materialising reconciliation: Negotiating difference in a postcolonial exhibition. In T. Royce & W. Bowcher (Eds.), New directions in the analysis of multimodal discourse (pp. 215–238). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
  40. Palmer, M. A., Brewer, N., & Horry, R. (2013). Understanding gender bias in face recognition: Effects of divided attention at encoding. Acta psychologica, 142(3), 362–369. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  41. Neal, T. M., & Brodsky, S. L. (2008). Expert witness credibility as a function of eye contact behavior and gender. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(12), 15151526. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  42. Thayer, S., & Schiff, W. (1975). Eye-contact, facial expression, and the experience of time. The Journal of social psychology, 95(1), 117–124. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  43. Broaders, S. C., Cook, S. W., Mitchell, Z., & GoldinMeadow, S. (2007). Making children gesture brings out implicit knowledge and leads to learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(4), 539. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  44. Wakefield, E. M., Novack, M. A., Congdon, E. L., & Howard, L. H. (2021). Individual differences in gesture interpretation predict children’s propensity to pick a gesturer as a good informant. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 205, 105069. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  45. Sawada, R., Sato, W., Kochiyama, T., Uono, S., Kubota, Y., Yoshimura, S., & Toichi, M. (2014). Sex differences in the rapid detection of emotional facial expressions. PloS one, 9(4), e94747. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  46. Razzano, L. A. (1993). Facial displays of emotion during discussions of anger and sadness. [Google Scholar]
  47. Zhang, C. (2012, December). Acoustic analysis of disguised voices with raised and lowered pitch. In 2012 8th International Symposium on Chinese Spoken Language Processing (pp. 353–357). IEEE. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  48. Burns, James MacGregor. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper and Row. [Google Scholar]
  49. Weedon, C. 1987 Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. [Google Scholar]
  50. Halim, M. L. D., Gutierrez, B. C., Bryant, D. N., Arredondo, M., & Takesako, K. (2018). Gender is what you look like: Emerging gender identities in young children and preoccupation with appearance. Self and Identity, 17(4), 455–466. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  51. Yu-Ling, Z., Zhuo, Z., & Chang-Xia, C. (2015, September). The Influence of Teachers’ Appearance in the Process of Teaching on the Teaching Effect. In 2015 Conference on Informatization in Education, Management and Business (IEMB-15) (pp. 560–563). Atlantis Press. [Google Scholar]
  52. McDuff, D., Kodra, E., Kaliouby, R. E., & LaFrance, M. (2017). A large-scale analysis of sex differences in facial expressions. PloS one, 12(4), e0173942. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  53. Van Schoors, R., Elen, J., Raes, A., Vanbecelaere, S., & Depaepe, F. (2023). The Charm or Chasm of Digital Personalized Learning in Education: Teachers’ Reported Use, Perceptions and Expectations. TechTrends, 67(2), 315–330. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  54. Brady, L. (2011). Teacher values and relationship: factors in values education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(2), 56–66 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.