Teachers’ Views of the School Community Support in the Context of a Science Curricular Reform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines teachers’ perceptions and comprehension of their school community support for change in implementing a new teaching approach in science and technology in the context of a reform initiative at the secondary level. It is part of a two-year research-intervention conducted with science teachers from a private school. Data was first collected through ethnographic notes and audio-recorded focus groups with 256 students. Although appreciated by students, the implementation provoked conflicts at the school community level. Building on the Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) and on the expansive learning cycle aiming at transforming an activity system, the actual study aims at deepening our understanding of the origins of contradictions at and between some of the poles of multileveled activity system that is object-oriented, mediated by artefacts (instruments), and comprises the community, rules and division of labor poles. Findings highlight the clash in the participant teachers’ values versus the community’s in implementing innovative teaching practice. Teachers report favoring nontraditional ways of teaching and giving more room to adolescents’ autonomy while the stakeholders (school principal, parents) are often looking for traditional teaching practices and students’ school achievement. The results put into evidence the need to identify common grounds and to make sense of the new science teaching approach aiming at promoting students’ autonomy, critical judgment, and school success levels.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".