Understanding Social Studies: Student and Teacher Voices in Relation to Theoretical Orientations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social Studies can be understood, or theorized, in a number of different ways as a consequence of its history (Evans, 2004). This paper presents the findings of a research study of high school students’ and teachers’ conceptions of Social Studies in relation to four philosophical orientations, labeled the Classicist/Traditionalist, Essentialist, Progressivist and Reconstructionist frames. These four frames are developed from literature in the field. After describing these frames, the research methods of the British Columbia (BC), Canada survey study with teachers and students are summarized. Participants included close to 200 students and teachers in three separate grades. Findings and conclusions are presented next. These findings illustrate that Social Studies is variously understood by participants and that connections exist between participants’ views of the subject and perceptions of its usefulness. The paper also describes students’ knowledge of the Social Sciences and students’ and teachers’ comments on the subject. The paper ends with recommendations, developed from the findings, which aim to improve teaching practice and student learning and engagement in the subject.
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 | 0.022 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| 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".