Inquiry based learning in University school outreach program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND The aim of this project is to examine the effect of including inquiry based learning activities into the education outreach program run by the Sydney University School of Physics called Kickstart Physics. Kickstart Physics sees approximately a quarter of the total number of students that sit the NSW HSC Physics examination. The rationale for the project was to utilise the large percentage of participants and include inquiry, which is advocated in the mandatory NSW curricula and is recognized as an appropriate pedagogy for school science. APPROACH A worksheet outlining an activity/experiment is handed out to half the students while the other half receive a worksheet designed on inquiry-based learning. The learning outcomes are the same for the two groups and syllabus dot points are the same. Some 1000 year 12 school students are surveyed. The project considers how students arrive at different inquiry-based outcomes such as making hypotheses, displaying and interpreting data, validity, reliability. RESULTS and CONCLUSIONS The design of the worksheets are critical for eliciting elements of inquiry in comparison to learning sequential content with the normal worksheets.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".