Scientists and Science Educators Mentoring Secondary Science Teachers
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
This paper examines secondary science teachers' perspectives of the role that mentoring by a scientist and science educator pair played in their professional development. Multiple data sources from three years of a professional development project, including interviews, participant reflections, and a focus group, were used to examine the benefits, supporting characteristics, and challenges of the mentoring relationship. Results indicated that primary benefits of the mentoring included assistance in translating science content and inquiry-based pedagogy from the professional development into practice and breaking the isolation felt by secondary science teachers. Specific characteristics that were found to support the teachers in the mentoring relationship included: (1) mentors who were seen as objective, outside observers; (2) a sustained relationship with the mentors; and (3) accountability. Challenges included matching scientists' and science educators' content expertise with teachers' curriculum and the negotiation of roles and expectations between the teachers and mentors.
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 | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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