MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098281514 · doi:10.1177/2158244013494862

Instrument for Assessing Disposition for Contextual Learning of Science of Students in East Africa

2013· article· en· W2098281514 on OpenAlexaff
Samson Madera Nashon, Ebby K. Madera

Bibliographic record

VenueSAGE Open · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDispositionPsychologyExperiential learningScience educationLearning sciencesScience learningMathematics educationMetacognitionExploratory factor analysisPedagogyRote learningCooperative learningTeaching methodSocial psychologyCognitionPsychometricsDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Attempts to make classroom science relevant to the real worlds of students can be enhanced by understanding their ways of learning and knowing. This study, which investigated East African (EA) students’ ways of knowing in science discourses, discusses the development, validation, and application of an instrument to assess EA students’ disposition for contextual learning of science. The Instrument for Assessing Disposition for Contextual Learning of Science (I-ADCLOS) is intended to assist teachers and students to assess their degree of disposition for contextual teaching and learning of science. Exploratory factor analysis of student responses to a 36-item questionnaire developed from theory yielded a validated 31-item I-ADCLOS comprising three dimensions and six subdimensions: Personal Awareness of Influences on Learning Science and Limitations of Traditional Knowledge (PA_ILS_LTK); Attitudes Towards Science Learning in Local Contexts and Nature of Traditional Knowing (AT_SLiLC_NoTK); and Orientation Towards Collateral and Personal Learning Strategies (OTC_PLS). These dimensions were further explored and determined to each bear two subdimensions—PA_ILS_LTK: (a) independence of science learning from cultural influences and (b) metacognitive learning; AT_SLiLC_NoTK (a) instrumentalist–culturalist perspectives and (b) exam-centered, textbook/teacher reliant learning; and OTC_PLS (a) personal awareness of successful learning strategies and other ways of knowing and (b) privileging science and learning by rote.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.344 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAGE OpenSame topicEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207