Science student role: Evidence of social structural norms specific to school science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Sociocultural studies of science education have consistently recognized the dialectic nature of students' agency to create and author positions for themselves and the structural constraints that may influence them. This mixed‐methods study explores one particular aspect of these potential constraints: the possibility of a social structure specific to school science, using the concept of a science student role as an indicator. The first phase of the study was qualitative and exploratory, using open‐ended questionnaires and interviews to understand students' views of the expectations placed on them as science students (n = 95). The second phase was quantitative (using items developed from the qualitative analysis), with both exploratory and confirmatory elements (n = 157). Results suggest clear and explicit role understandings among these students, characterized by references to expectations of intelligence, experimental skill, scientific mindedness, and appropriate classroom behavior. The consistency of these expectations across genders, science teachers and schools provides evidence that there is an element of social structure specific to school science that needs to be considered in studies of student agency and identity. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., Inc. J Res Sci Teach 48: 367–395, 2011
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".