Science Teacher Preparation in a North American Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article provides a description of science teacher education policy in Canada and the USA. We focus on qualifications and procedures to obtain an initial teaching license, requirements for license renewal, and trends in our respective countries. In both countries, science teacher education is the responsibility of the province or state, rather than the federal government. Because these countries are composed of many provinces/states, each with its own unique characteristics, we focus on general trends, recognizing that exceptions to these trends exist. Our review indicates that science teacher education in Canada and the USA consists of a highly diverse array of licenses, requirements, and programs. While this variability provides flexibility for programs to meet local needs and to create innovative programs, it also creates the potential for teachers to enter classrooms with insufficient preparation. In both countries, multiple pathways lead to certification, many of which have very few science content or science pedagogy requirements. The science content knowledge required of elementary teachers is of concern in both countries. Secondary science teachers have multiple ways to teach with insufficient preparation in science content and pedagogy. The nature of science is notably absent from most science teacher education state and provincial requirements. Innovative program structures with high requirements for science content and pedagogy exist in both countries. Research is needed that compares program structures and requirements to determine their relative impact on teachers’ practices. Additionally, much remains to be done to improve the extent to which existing research influences policy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".