Towards a conceptual-based, student-centred pedagogy
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
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to report on the approaches teacher candidates (TCs) took to craft the object of learning and the critical aspects when applying variation theory, in planning science lessons. It addresses the difficulty TCs often face in determining what students could learn when crafting the objects of learning and the critical aspects. Design/methodology/approach A total of 27 science TCs from an initial teacher education (ITE) were introduced to variation theory and collaborated in groups of four to five to plan lessons. Data included recordings of the lesson planning session and fieldnotes, TCs’ lesson plans and individual semi-structured interviews. Phenomenography as a methodology was employed to capture the variation in the TCs’ approaches in crafting the objects of learning and the critical aspects, resulting in categories of description that illustrated the complexity of the lesson planning process the TCs engaged with. Findings Arranged in hierarchical order, the three categories of description include TCs: analysing content knowledge in order to promote conceptual learning; reflecting on personal experiences and beliefs about teaching and learning; and drawing on external resources to develop knowledge about students. Practical implications The ways the TCs engaged with lesson planning constituted valuable resources to build their capacity to differentiate between superficial content engagement and deep conceptual learning. Originality/value The study reports on the potential of framing ITE discourse using variation theory to support TCs’ engaging with science teaching that is more conceptual-based, while increasing their sensitivity to students’ common conceptions that constrained the learning of canonical science.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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