Examining the topical coverage of genetics and biological evolution in Canadian secondary science curricula: A comparative content analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction This study was a comparative content analysis of the Canadian secondary science curriculum documents with the overarching purpose of identifying the scope and sequence of topical coverage in genetics and biological evolution. Methods The units of analysis in this study, which were comprised of all the statements pertaining to genetics and biological evolution in the 45 secondary science curriculum documents in Canada, were identified through manual reading of the documents. Furthermore, using deductive category development techniques, we categorized the statements using a categorization scheme developed by Zorek and Raehl (2013). This scheme allowed us to categorize identified statements according to their applicability and accountability to our research objectives. Inter‐rater reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients. Discrepancies between raters were negotiated until consensus was reached. Next, we employed inductive reasoning techniques to identify codes and generate common themes and categories relevant to the teaching and learning of both genetics and biological evolution. Results Of the 45 secondary science curriculum documents we analyzed, 28 contained statements that were relevant to genetics and biological evolution. Good to excellent degrees of reliability were found between rater‐pairs. Final categorization, following negotiations, resulted in a total of 509 applicable statements across all curriculum documents, of which 198 (38.90%) were accountable and 311 (61.10%) were non‐accountable. More than two‐thirds of the accountable statements were relevant to genetics (68.18%). Most topics in both genetics and biological evolution are taught in Grade 12, accounting for 58.21% and 49.18% of all genetics‐related and biological evolution‐related accountable statements, respectively. A total of 16 major themes emerged from the inductive analysis of the 135 genetics‐related accountable statements. These themes were organized into four broad categories: (1) Genetic Material (five themes); (2) Mutations (three themes); (3) Inheritance (six themes); (4) Reproductive Technology (two themes). In addition, a total of 12 major themes emerged from the inductive analysis of the 63‐biological evolution‐related accountable statements. These themes were organized into three broad categories: (1) Theory of Evolution (five themes); (2) Evolutionary Mechanisms (four themes); (3) Evolutionary Principles (three themes). Conclusion Analyses of the curriculum documents indicated that, depending on jurisdiction, biological evolution is largely taught in either Grade 11 or Grade 12, while genetics is largely taught in Grade 12. Significance Our findings denote that biological evolution is taught before and, in some jurisdictions, possibly in tandem with genetics. Accordingly, further investigation is warranted to examine exactly how these topics are taught, perhaps through qualitative research methods involving interviews with teachers nationwide. At present, nevertheless, policy and decision‐makers in many Canadian jurisdictions are advised to revise their curricula in the direction of the literature's recommendations.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».