Contentious Issues in Science Education: Building Critical Thinking Patterns through Two-Dimensional Concept Mapping.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Using a survey and follow-up qualitative research design, an elaborate model of technology integration has been studied in a science education classroom. Using a coding system known as cognotes, teacher-interns were first taught how to recognize electronic discussion contributions consisting specifically of critical approaches such as compare, contrast, cause and effect, inductive and deductive reasoning. An electronic concept map outlining the instructor's consideration of a contentious issue (creationism vs. evolution) was supplied to students. Students further developed concept maps (using Inspiration[R] software) in two ways: (a) students hyperlinked the individual concepts in their map to html-based learning logs and (b) students hyperlinked their own relational phrases between concepts to captured electronic discussions. The impact of the instructional approach was assessed through a survey of 68 students, standardized semi-structured interviews, and focus group methodology. Students were especially positive with regard to using a two-dimensional hyperlinked graphic organizer to lend a framework to their understanding of a contentious issue in science education. With regard to electronic discussion, students identified improvements in (a) their ability to formulate arguments, (b) their ability to lead effective discussions, and (c) their ability to substantiate their conceptual frameworks. The technology-integration model described is generic in its application and could be used with a variety of content knowledge. CONTEXT OF THE STUDY The study was undertaken in the School of Education at Acadia University, the first laptop institution in Canada. In 1996 Acadia entered into a partnership with IBM that would place laptop computers in the hands of some 3500 students and 400 faculty. Through an elaborate network, participants have anywhere-anytime access to the internet and an extensive offering of software. Classrooms are equipped with complete digital audio-visual systems and network connections allowing for an excellent environment to study the pedagogical impacts pf technology integration. Teacher interns (n=68) in two sections of a science education course were necessarily involved in the action research study. All interns were enrolled in a two-year post-degree Bachelor of Education program leading to teacher certification. A cursory electronic survey of all 68 students established that their level of competency in computer technologies (e.g., word processing, e-mail, spreadsheets, databases, internet searching) was good to very good on a Likert scale. (LS= 4.5 where 1 was very poor and 5 was very good) A MODEL FOR USING TECHNOLOGY TO UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES SURROUNDING THE CREATION VERSUS EVOLUTION CONTROVERSY Typically teacher interns in science education are exposed to systematic strategies for engaging the contentious issues in science (National Science Teachers Association [NSTA], 2000). In particular, science teacher interns are anxious to gain experience in dealing with the complicated controversy of creationism versus evolution. The instructor supplied students with an incomplete electronic hierarchical concept map (Novak, 1990) prepared with the software Inspiration[R] (Figure 1). A conscious choice was made to access electronic concept mapping tools in that they have been shown to result in more conceptually complex mapping amongst students (Royer & Royer, 2004). The concept map was based on component topical aspects that the instructor would introduce in three consecutive class lectures on aspects of engaging evolution versus creationism in science classrooms. The concept map was incomplete in that the relational phrases between concepts were purposefully left blank. A unique aspect of the Inspiration[R] software (which students have network access to) is its ability to hyperlink external documents (local or online) not only to concept boxes but also to the propositional phrases that link the concepts. …
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 | 0,037 | 0,058 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,008 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,010 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,011 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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 ».