Connecting research in science literacy and classroom practice: a review of science teaching journals in Australia, the UK and the United States, 1998–2008
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last 15 years (1994–2009), there has been considerable increased research interest in: (1) characterising the distinctive nature and constitutive elements of science literacy and (2) investigating classroom practices or necessary conditions that enable students to acquire this disciplinary capacity. This raises the question of the extent to which this research agenda and emerging findings have been reflected in science teaching journals that seek to influence classroom practice. In this paper, we review the content of science teaching journals in Australia, the UK and the USA, 1998–2008, to identify the degree of alignment between these two literatures. We found a research‐practice gap, with the science teaching journals more often citing research from literacy education than from science education. We conclude by considering the implications of these findings as well as possible strategies to develop a more generative relationship between research on the acquisition of science literacy and teacher journal prescriptions in this area.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.191 | 0.108 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it