Effects of Outdoor School Ground Lessons on Students’ Science Process Skills and Scientific Curiosity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of outdoor school ground lessons on Year Five students’ science process skills and scientific curiosity. A quasi-experimental design was employed in this study. The participants in the study were divided into two groups, one subjected to the experimental treatment, defined as “eco-hunt” group and the other had no experimental treatment, defined as control group. This study used intact four classes which consisted of 119 students and randomly assigned to the treatment (n = 63) and control groups (n = 56). Students’ science process skill was measured by a self-developed Science Process Skills Test and students’ scientific curiosity was measured using Children Scientific Curiosity Scale adapted from Harty and Beall (1984). The results showed a significant difference in post-test mean scores between students in “eco-hunt” group and control group in both students’ science process skills and scientific curiosity. Follow-up comparisons on the dimensions of science process skills and scientific curiosity were analyzed and discussed. The findings of this study will provide a framework for science teachers to teach students through interesting and meaningful outdoor activities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".