The Integration of Science Process Skills: A Content Analysis of the 2016 Ontario Kindergarten Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prior works has demonstrated that engaging young children in meaningful science experiences leads to positive attitudes towards science and to a better understanding of formal science concepts. In particular, implementing activities that support the development of science process skills such as observing, inferring and predicting in the early years has been proven as essential for students to cultivate the abilities required to advance scientific inquiry in the later grades. This study examined how science process skills and science in general are represented throughout the 2016 Ontario Kindergarten Program with the purpose obtaining an understanding of the science content present in the document. The results of the study obtained by means of content analysis revealed an absence of explicit mentions of science education in the document contrasting with a large number of mentions of science process skills. However, the identified references to science process skills were mostly found without a context and scattered all over the document, and not explicitly found as elements of cohesive units of science education. The results of the study put in evidence the need to strength the science content in the 2016 Ontario Kindergarten Program.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".