MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005828999 · doi:10.1080/03057267.2014.881626

Interest, motivation and attitude towards science and technology at K-12 levels: a systematic review of 12 years of educational research

2014· review· en· W2005828999 on OpenAlexaff
Patrice Potvin, Abdelkrim Hasni

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Science Education · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicScience Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionPsychologyFocus (optics)Positive attitudeSocial psychologyEpistemologySociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relationship that exists between students and science and technology (S&T) is a complex and important one. If it is positive, then social, economic and environmental consequences are to be expected. Yet, many problems of interest/motivation/attitude (I/M/A) towards S&T have been recorded. A lot of research has been conducted on this topic and a certain number of syntheses have been proposed, but very few of them have followed sufficiently systematic procedures. In this article, we offer a synthetic and systematic description of 228 research articles that were published between 2000 and 2012 and indexed in the ERIC database under I/M/A for S&T at K-12 levels. We focus on the origin of these articles, on the constructs they use and define, on the instruments, and finally on the results they provide, whether correlative or causal. Conclusions and recommendations for future research and interventions are formulated.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0150.017
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.550
GPT teacher head0.607
Teacher spread0.056 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations722
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Science EducationSame topicScience Education and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207