St. Lucian Elementary School Teachers’ Applicability Beliefs and Beliefs about Science Teaching and Learning: Relevance to Their Level of Inquiry-Based Instructional Practices in Science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the hypothesis that St. Lucian primary school teachers’ science teaching and learning beliefs and their applicability beliefs are stronger predictors of their science teaching strategies than their teacher education experiences. Quantitative procedures were used where the level of each belief construct as well as their underlying constructs was measured in each teacher in the population and a determination made as to their favourability towards inquiry-based instruction (IBI). The levels of a sample of these teachers’ IBI practices were also determined using an observational rating scale. Multiple regression analyses were used to determine the extent to which teachers‘ beliefs serve as predictors of their IBI practices. The results showed that teachers’ applicability beliefs were barely moderately favourable to their practice of IBI, while their beliefs about science teaching and learning were favourable. Their inquiry-based practices were found to be at the unsatisfactory developing inquiry level. While their science teaching and learning beliefs were found to be significant and moderately positive predictors of their inquiry-based instructional practices, their applicability beliefs seemingly functioned as a moderating variable that limited the effect of teachers’ favourable science teaching and learning beliefs on their instructional practices. These findings are significant in that they show the detrimental effect school-based factors can have on teachers’ instructional practices in science.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".