Discourse forms in a classroom transitioning to student-centred scientific inquiry through co-teaching
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teacher–student discourse continues to be teacher-centred even though researchers and reform documents have recommended changes toward increased levels of student-centred discourse. In science education this situation is paralleled by effort to make scientific inquiry more student-centred. The purpose of this study was to investigate how discourse forms changed over time in a classroom where the regular teacher and his students were scaffolded in the transitioning to student-centred scientific inquiry. Video-recordings were collected at intervals over one academic year. Three prominent forms of discourse were identified: two teacher-authoritative forms and one more interactive, dialogic form. As the lessons increasingly turned into student-centred scientific inquiry, a shift to the dialogic discourse form was found. Co-teaching provided for (a) guidance towards an organisation of events in the classroom that included regular teacher–student dialogue (b) modelling of the more dialogic form of discourse.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 it