Science Teachers’ Instructional Practices in Malaysian and German Secondary Schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advancement of science and technology in many areas has made progress on human lives more developed than the ancient time. A strong science education would be able to equip our younger generation with the skills needed to ensure them for securing a better job in future. Thus, this study is to compare the science teachers’ instructional practices in Malaysian and German secondary schools. A total of sixteen science teachers were involved where eight of them were from the German secondary schools and another eight of them were from Malaysian secondary schools. This study was done by conducting classroom observations and semi-structure interviews. The data collected were then analyzed qualitatively based on Dancy and Hendersons’ framework of instructional practices. In conclusion, Malaysian and German science teachers have similar source of knowledge, definition of students’ success, learning modes, type of motivation and problem-solving skills where they show differences in the interactivity of the classroom, instructional decisions, assessment, content and instructional design. There are also ten good instructional practices found in this study which can be adapted in both nations to improve their science education.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".