MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2296868830 · doi:10.14288/1.0093125

Investigation of the goals of the laboratory programme in secondary school chemistry courses in British Columbia

2010· article· en· W2296868830 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stephen Griffiths

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicScience Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationPedagogyChemistryMedical educationSociologyPsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1965 and 1966 a modified version of the Chem Study programme was introduced into Grades 11 and 12 in British Columbia secondary schools, to replace Chem 90 and Chem 91, which were based on Dull, Brookes and Metcalfe's text, Modern Chemistry. As a result of this change, a traditional, text-book centred course was replaced by a contemporary laboratory-centred course. In Chem Study, laboratory experience replaces the text as the primary source of information and the information gathered in the laboratory is used as the basis for the development of theoretical concepts. It is considered most important by Chem Study that the teacher recognises the goals of the laboratory programme and that he works towards these goals in practice. In addition, it is necessary for both teacher and student to recognise the relationship existing between laboratory observations and the development of theory if the major goals of the course are to be realised. This thesis describes an attempt to determine whether British Columbia secondary school chemistry teachers are indeed aware of the goals of the laboratory programme and whether they and their students think these goals are being achieved. Q-analysis procedures and techniques were used to gather and analyse the data. Three groups of interested people, namely, specialists, chemistry teachers and students were requested to describe the goals of the laboratory programme by rank-ordering a comprehensive list of items, each describing one goal of laboratory work. The items, which were gathered from a wide variety of sources, were arranged by each subject into a predetermined (modified normal) distribution pattern. The item scores for each subject were correlated and the correlation matrix factor analysed. Each factor identified by the computer programme represented a group of persons with similar viewpoints. In addition a hierarchy of item acceptance was established for each factor on the basis of item z-scores. This enabled the viewpoint of each factor and the differences between viewpoints to be described. It has been shown that teachers are aware of the goals of the Provincial Chem Study programme and that they believe that they work towards these goals in practice. However, students perceive the priorities of the goals of the laboratory course to be different from those described by the teacher. The differences that exist between the viewpoints of teachers and students are in part differences in emphasis and in part differences in substance.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.312
Threshold uncertainty score0.627

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicScience Education and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207