MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1937384284

Inquiry in early years science teaching and learning : curriculum design and the scientific story

2001· book· en· W1937384284 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Barbara McMillan

Bibliographic record

VenueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada) · 2001
Typebook
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicDiverse Educational Innovations Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumMathematics educationPedagogyEngineering ethicsSociologyEngineeringPsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inquiry in school science, as conceived by the authors of the 'Common Framework of Science Learning Outcomes K-12', is dependent upon four areas of skills. These are the skills of initiating and planning, performing and recording, analysing and interpreting, and communication and teamwork that map onto what Hodson calls the five phases of scientific inquiry in school science: initiation, design and planning, performance, interpretation, and reporting and communicating. This study looked at initiation in a multiage (Grades 1-3) classroom, and the curriculum, design tools, and inquiry acts believed to be necessary precursors of design and planning phases whether the inquiry in which young children engage is archival or laboratory investigation. The curriculum was designed to build upon children's everyday biological knowledge and through a series of carefully organized lessons to help them to begin to build scientifically valid conceptual models in the area of animal life cycles. The lessons began with what is called benchmark-invention after the historical work of Robert Karplus and the contemporary work of Earl Hunt and Jim Minstrell. The introduction of a biological concept was followed by a series of exploration activities in which children were encouraged to apply the concept invented in the benchmark lesson. Enlargement followed. This was the instructional phase in which children were helped to establish scientifically valid relationships between the invented concept and other biological concepts. The pre-instruction and post-instruction interview data suggest that the enacted curriculum and sequence in which the biological knowledge was presented helped the nineteen children in the study to recognize the connections and regularities within the life cycles of the major groupings of animals, and to begin to build scientific biological conceptual models. It is, however, argued that everyday biology, in the form of the person analogy, acts as an obstacle to biological understanding, and that the construction of scientific knowledge depends upon first hand experiences with organisms, as much as it does dialogical interaction, "acts of inquiry", and reflective exploration of multiple sources of information.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.658
Threshold uncertainty score0.798

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.166
Teacher spread0.155 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada)Same topicDiverse Educational Innovations StudiesFrench-language works237,207