MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011764369 · doi:10.29173/slw6775

Grade 4 Students' Development of Research Skills Through Inquiry-Based Learning Projects

2001· article· en· W2011764369 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSchool Libraries Worldwide · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational Strategies and Epistemologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRote learningCurriculumMathematics educationClass (philosophy)PedagogyGovernment (linguistics)PsychologyProfessional developmentTeaching methodCooperative learningComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Researchers like Harada, Yoshina, Donham, Bishop, Kuhlthau, and Oberg have pointed out the benefits for students to move from rote to inquiry learning. However, "the norm in many classrooms remains teaching practice that results in rote learning and regurgitated facts." In recent years, the Hong Kong government's Education Bureau has put inquiry-based learning as the first emphasis under the new General Studies curriculum for primary schools with the objective of "creating more learning space by removing obsolete content, allowing more time for inquiry-based learning." Many schools are now attempting to incorporate this mode of learning into their curriculum. This study reports on two phases of IBL projects undertaken by 141 grade 4 students, each phase lasting for two to three months. The projects were led by general studies teachers and heavily supported by Chinese-language teachers, the information technology teacher, and the school librarian. Through analyzing the lesson plans, in-class exercises, homework assignments, written reports, presentations by students, and data collected through surveys and interviews, this article focuses specifically on the role of the general studies teachers in guiding students through the inquiry process. It also analyzes the students' development of knowledge and research skills, as well as students' and parents' perceptions of the projects.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.205
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.291 · 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