An evaluation of an experimental science enrichment program : "Light and illusion", Vancouver School Board, Arts and Sciences Centre, Vancouver, B.C. September 1980-June 1981
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated an experimental program in informal learning, “Light and Illusion,” developed by the Vancouver School Board in cooperation with the Arts and Sciences Centre of Vancouver. A mail questionnaire was developed based upon a review of the literature on informal learning . The questionnaire was distributed to the Vancouver School Board teachers who visited the workshop with their students. The study was conducted over a three month period; 94 of the 150 questionnaires sent out were returned (69% return ) . The questionnaire sought to determine which teachers (grade level and subject area) used the workshop, how teachers used the workshop, what teachers liked and disliked about the workshop, and what suggestions they had for future workshops. The results were reported as percentage responses to the questionnaire items. In addition , a series of observations and recommendations were made. In particular the study showed that 90% of the attending teachers were highly satisfied with the workshop as a learning experience for their students. They commented favorably on the quality of the exhibits , freedom of choice, and the noticeable increase in student interest in science. Elementary teachers rated the workshop more highly than did secondary teachers, although both indicated they benefited by seeing their students work in a novel environment. Teachers thought that further informal learning workshops should be offered to students through the cooperation of the Vancouver School Board and the Arts and Sciences Centre.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".