Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study explores the relationship between affective and cognitive variables in grade 9 chemistry students (n = 73). In particular, it explores how students' situational interest, their attitudes toward chemistry, and their chemistry‐specific self‐concept influence their understanding of chemistry concepts over the course of a school year. All affective variables were assessed at two time points: at the middle of the first semester of grade 9, and at the end of the second semester of grade 9, and then related to students' postinstructional understanding of chemical concepts. Results reveal that none of the affective variables measured at the earliest time point have a significant direct effect on postinstructional conceptual understanding. Looking at the different affective variables as intermediary constructs, however, reveals a pattern in which self‐concept and situational interest measured at the middle of grade 9 contribute to self‐concept measured at the end of grade 9, which in turn, has a positive, significant effect on students' postinstructional conceptual understanding. These results reveal the importance of a strong and positive self‐concept, the feeling of doing well in the chemistry class, for developing a meaningful understanding of scientific concepts. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 44: 908–937, 2007
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".