MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1509716283

Contentious Issues in Science Education: Building Critical Thinking Patterns through Two-Dimensional Concept Mapping.

2006· article· en· W1509716283 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of educational multimedia and hypermedia · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaptopScience educationIBMContext (archaeology)Computer scienceCritical thinkingMathematics educationGeneral partnershipPedagogyPsychologySociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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. …

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.275
Threshold uncertainty score0.785

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.380 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it