Science Student Teachers’ Cognitive Structure on the Concept of “Food Pyramid”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study aims to determine science student teachers’ cognitive structure on the concept of food pyramid. Qualitative research method was applied in this study. Fallacies detected in the pre-service teachers’ conceptual structures are believed to result in students’ developing misconceptions in their future classes and will adversely affect their future teaching performance. The data were collected from 48 science student teachers. A free word association test was used as a data collection instrument. The data collected were subject to content analysis. Analyzing the science student teachers’ responses to the concept of food pyramid on the free word association test, these responses were coded and divided into categories. Based on the categories, frequency and percentages were provided. The data collected through the study were divided into 7 categories, which were stated as follows: -relationship between producer, consumer and decomposer in matter and energy flow-concepts related to nourishment pyramid-definition of food pyramid-energy and matter transfer-producer, consumer and decomposer-elements of ecosystem and ecological factors- scientific disciplines related to food pyramid. When the words provided as answers by the science student teachers to the concept of food pyramid were analyzed, it was noticed that they had more word connections with relationship between producer, consumer and decomposer in matter and energy flow. It can be argued that some students could not produce any sentences and some others could not make meaningful sentences. Moreover, it was determined that they had some misconceptions about food pyramid. Similar research can be conducted with different student groups and for the correction of alternative concepts related to the concept of food pyramid, extra biology courses should be included in undergraduate curriculums.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".