MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171180341 · doi:10.1177/1932202x11429860

Student Outcomes in Inquiry Instruction

2012· article· en· W2171180341 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Academics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreativityPsychologyMathematics educationInquiry-based learningPoint (geometry)CognitionDiscovery learningPedagogySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Curricular reform efforts are underway in many countries, focused on adopting inquiry-based approaches to teaching and learning. Therefore, it is increasingly important to understand what outcomes students attain in inquiry environments. Derived from a literature review, a 23-item, criterion-referenced inventory is presented for theoretically implied and empirically based outcomes or benefits for students engaging in inquiry, and includes research on overlapping pedagogical topics such as discovery learning and problem-based learning. Student outcomes include knowledge and skills, intrinsic motivation, and development of expertise, among others. Supporting research is primarily available in the areas of cognitive and affective outcomes (e.g., knowledge, skills, motivation, attitudes, and creativity). This list can be used as a starting point for research or converted into professional development tools.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.191
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.366 · 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