Dissection and Choice in the Science Classroom: Student Experiences, Teacher Responses, and a Critical Analysis of the Right to Refuse
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Choice in dissection has been characterized as an issue that intersects with teacher freedoms and student rights, sometimes resulting in a struggle between the two. This study investigated the experiences of former students (n=311) and teachers (n=153) in Ontario, Canada to determine (a) whether students are being offered a choice between participating in a dissection and using an alternative, and (b) the impressions students and teachers hold toward choice-in-dissection policies. Surveys and interviews with both groups revealed that teachers do not always offer choice. Further, while the majority of the student population reported that they were in favour of choice policies, less than half of the teachers supported their implementation. A consideration of these findings from a critical pedagogy standpoint highlights power dynamics and a privileging of traditional dissection in the classroom. It is argued that choice policies are progressive and necessary to decentre dissection as the “best” way to learn.
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 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 | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it