To Teach Or Not To Teach Astronomy, That Is The Question: Results Of A Survey Of Québec’s Elementary Teachers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine the extent of astronomy teaching in Quebec’s schools, we conducted an online survey of 500 Québec’s elementary (K-6) teachers between January and March 2015. With a 35-items questionnaire, we wanted to find out how these elementary teachers teach astronomy (or not) to their classrooms, what is their background in Science & Technology (S&T), what pre-service education they received, the reasons why they teach astronomy or not to their students, the resources and materials they have at their disposal, their perception of the effectiveness of pre- and in-service training they received, and their perceived needs for in-service training. Results show that the majority of teachers surveyed didn’t study science beyond high school and have had no experience in S&T employment before becoming a teacher. We also found that only half of the teachers surveyed actually teach astronomy to their class, mostly by using reading and writing material, and that 39% of “Astronomy teachers” in our sample teach astronomy to their class between 6 and 10 hours per year. Major hurdles to astronomy teaching perceived by the teachers in our survey are a lack of experience and training in astronomy, a lack of resources and equipment, inadequate classroom arrangement, and their own, self-perceived incompetence in astronomy. Pre-service education in astronomy, in science and in science teaching is also considered mainly unsatisfactory, or non-existent in the case of astronomy; in-service training in astronomy is mainly composed of conversations with colleagues. Most respondents thus consider in-service training in astronomy to be inefficient or inexistent.
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 | 0.013 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".