Students' Views of Science: A Comparison between Tertiary and Secondary School Students.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract There is relatively tittle research evidence that documents current students' views of science - particularly a comparison of secondary and tertiary science. Further, tittle is known about how students' views of science differ according to level of study. This study provides evidence of students' view of science from both school and university students. study uses a qualitative approach to examine how the views of secondary and tertiary students may be influenced by factors such as motivation, interest and career aspirations. Forty Australian students from a high school and a university completed an open-ended questionnaire to capture their view of science. questionnaire results suggested that whilst the majority of students viewed science positively, with female students being more positive than males, their interest declined as they progressed to tertiary education. Keywords: Students' views of science; open-ended questionnaire; science interest; Motivation; career in science. Introduction development of scientifically Uterate students remains one of the most important objectives in all domains and levels of science (Laugksch, 2000). However, a progressive decline in student enrolments in the sciences at both secondary school and university levels in industrialised nations is well-documented in Australia (Ainley, 1993; Fullerton, Walker, Ainley, & Hillman, 2003; Tytler, 2007), England and Wales (Brown, 2001), Germany (Riess, 2000), Japan (Goto, 2001), Canada (Bordt, De Broucker, Read, Harris, & Zhang, 2001) and the USA (National Science Foundation, 2002; 2004). This study will confine itself to Australia. In Australia, the Australian Council of Educational Research (ACER) found that Australia faces significant challenges in boosting participation in science and mathematics studies at school and tertiary levels (Ainley, Kos, & Nicholas, 2008). Australian Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST, 2003), revealed that there has been an overall decline in enrolment in undergraduate courses in the physical and natural sciences between 1997 and 2002. decline has occurred against massive growth in higher education with student numbers doubling over the same period. Victorian Parliament Education and Training Committee (VPETC, 2006) also expressed concerns about the declining enrolment of school graduates in mathematics - and sciencebased university and trade studies. A number of Australian studies over the last two decades have shown a general decline in students' interest and enjoyment of science across the compulsory secondary school years, with a particularly sharp decline across the primary to secondary school transition (e.g. Adams, Doig, & Rosier, 1991 ; Goodrum, Hackling, & Rennie, 2001). In a recent report, Masters (2009) revealed that: The average interest of Australian 15-year-olds in learning science is well below the OECD average and among the lowest levels of interest in the world. Queensland students' interest in science is below the Australian mean for each of the six science topics (physics, chemistry, plant biology, human biology, astronomy and geology) and lower than in any of the 41 countries participating in PISA 2006. (Masters, 2009, p. 27). According to Speering and Rennie (1996), this decline in interest in science in the early years of secondary school is particularly of concern, since it is in these years that attitudes to the pursuit of science subjects and careers are formed. At a time when Australia most needs them to carry the nation into a technologically-driven future, there are fewer students studying science. Despite the growth in the tertiary student population, the number of students studying STEM courses have decreased over the past decade (Birrell, Edwards, Dobson, & Smith, 2005; Dekkers & De Laeter, 2001) compared with the number of students studying arts and business courses. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».