MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1951617065 · doi:10.1002/tea.21105

“We could think of things that could be science”: Girls' re‐figuring of science in an out‐of‐school‐time club

2013· article· en· W1951617065 on OpenAlexaff
Allison J. Gonsalves, Jrène Rahm, Alice Teles de Carvalho

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Research in Science Teaching · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicScience Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClubScience educationSociologySociocultural evolutionFiguringConversationMedia studiesPedagogyPsychologyAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Grounded in sociocultural theory, this study explores how the figured world of science is reworked through a series of multi‐media activities that were introduced into a girls‐only conversation club in an after school program for Teens. The study is part of a multi‐sited ethnography in which we explored youths' engagement with science within three sites. In this paper, we focus on a qualitative case study of one site. We present an analysis of the kinds of resources and cultural models of science that youth mobilized as they re‐figured science together over time, and in a space usually reserved for talk about girls' issues. Our study revealed that a meaningful introduction of science into an out‐of‐school‐time (OST) space that values youths' prior experiences seemed to depend on a two‐way exchange: re‐figuring their experiences as science‐experiences; and the re‐figuring of science to include their every‐day experiences. The study was successful in helping the girls re‐figure the world of science in ways that went beyond the mobilization of cultural models tied to school science only. Through collage, video production, formal and informal dialogue, youth mobilized resources from youth culture to position themselves as insiders to science and to refigure science to include resources from their everyday experiences. Yet, that figuring was also heavily marked by time and space. Follow‐up interviews point to a limited shifting of what counts as “real science” or how the youth consider themselves in relation to science. We conclude with a discussion of the gap between youth interest driven science experiences and science experiences driven by disciplinary practices detached from the world of youth. We discuss the implications of such a tension for introducing science into OST settings with program goals that extend beyond science learning. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 50: 1068–1097, 2013

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.012
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.346
GPT teacher head0.558
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations83
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Research in Science TeachingSame topicScience Education and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207