MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2550181897 · doi:10.5539/hes.v6n4p156

Promoting Student Teachers’ Content Related Knowledge in Teaching Systems Thinking: Measuring Effects of an Intervention through Evaluating a Videotaped Lesson

2016· article· en· W2550181897 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Frank Rosenkränzer, Tim Kramer, Christian Hörsch, Stephan Schuler, Werner Rieß

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher Education Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicScience Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMathematics educationTeaching methodKnowledge retentionCritical thinkingPsychological interventionPedagogyIntervention (counseling)MetacognitionMedical educationCognitionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>The understanding of complex, dynamic and animate systems has a special standing in education for sustainable development and biology. Thus one important role of science teacher education is to promote student teachers’ Content Related Knowledge (CRK) for teaching systems thinking, consisting of extensive Content Knowledge (CK) and well formed Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK). But the effective development of this knowledge is empirically uncertain. This article reports the effects of three different interventions (technical course, didactic course, mixed course) in promoting student teachers’ reflective Content Related Knowledge for teaching systems thinking. Participants analyzed a videotaped lesson of 6th graders learning about the ecosystem lake and identified weak aspects in the teacher’s CK and PCK. The results revealed that student teachers’ reflective Content Related Knowledge for teaching systems thinking can be promoted in teacher education. The conclusion to be drawn from our findings is that a mixed course with equal technical and didactical input seems to be most effective in fostering student teachers’ reflective Content Related Knowledge for teaching systems thinking.</p>

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 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)0.006
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.257
Threshold uncertainty score0.506

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.301
GPT teacher head0.519
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations20
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigher Education StudiesSame topicScience Education and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207