Technology and Early Science Education: Examining Generalist Primary School Teachers’ Views on Tacit Knowledge Assessment Tools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For some time a central issue has occupied early science education discussions – primary student classroom experiences and the resulting attitudes towards science. This has in part been linked to generalist teachers’ own knowledge of science topics and pedagogical confidence. Recent research in cognitive development has examined the role of so-called tacit knowledge and its potential benefits for supporting conceptual development in children. However, the incorporation of such tools would depend on teachers’ willingness to use it. Taking a qualitative approach through interviews, the present study examined 12 generalist primary school teachers’ views on science education and their perceptions of tacit knowledge assessment as an approach to facilitating conceptual change. The overall results indicate positive attitudes embedded within a model centred on trust and responsibility of learning. These findings support the use of relevant software for teaching children by emphasising the willingness of teachers to use such technology, which has further consequences for continuing professional development of classroom teachers who do not have formal science backgrounds, which in turn should promote science achievements among students.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".