MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2914708607

Pre-service Teachers' Science and Web 2.0 Affect and Aspiration: A Survey Study

2018· article· en· W2914708607 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yu Song

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship@Western (Western University) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAffect (linguistics)Service (business)Computer scienceBusinessPsychologyMarketingCommunication
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Teachers’ affect and aptitude towards science and technology influence their students through their teaching, other activities, and informal interactions. The study explored and understand Ontario pre-service teachers’ affects toward science and Web 2.0 by designing and validating a questionnaire that includes demographic, usage, and scale questions; and by surveying 134 B.Ed. students. The science part of the survey was validated and analyzed, the Web 2.0 scale items were excluded because of low correlation.\nThe results indicate that: (1) Pre-service teachers have overall high motivation, high self-efficacy, a positive attitude, and medium aspiration towards science. (2) Science motivation, self-efficacy, attitude, and aspiration scores in the survey can be predicted by other categories; however, self-efficacy and aspiration do not predict each other. (3) Five variables – time spent on learning about science, time using Web 2.0 to learn science, educational background, science-related university major, and teaching option – influence pre-service teachers’ science motivation, self-efficacy, attitude, and aspiration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship@Western (Western University)→Same topicImpact of Technology on Adolescents→French-language works237,207→