Does Teacher Education Program Affect on Development of Teacher Candidates’ Bioethical Values, Scientific Literacy Levels and Empathy Skills?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to evaluate science teacher candidates based on bioethical values, scientific literacy level and empathy skills and to determine their associations. Therefore, descriptive model was used for the study. The sample of the study consists total of 286 teacher candidates from first, second, third and fourth grade of Faculty of Education Science Teaching department. Results of the study revealed that bioethical values for “Benefits of Biotechnology Applications”, “Science and Ethics”, “Reproductive Technologies and Cloning”, “Controlling the Genetic Interventions” subscales were increased with school year in science teacher candidates. In addition, science literacy of science teacher candidates for “Nature of Science” and “Science-Technology-Society Relation” subscales were also increased with school year. The study also found a positive relation between bioethical values for two subscales of bioethical values, “Benefits of Biotechnology Applications” and “Controlling the Genetic Interventions”, and science literacy for “Nature of Science” subscales in science teacher candidates. Similarly, a positive relation was found between bioethical values for two subscales, “Benefits of Biotechnology Applications” and “Controlling the Genetic Interventions”, and science literacy for “Science-Technology-Society Relation” subscale in science teacher candidates. Analysis results showed a positive relation between bioethical values and empathy skills of science teacher candidates. In other words, the higher the teacher’s empathy skills, the higher their bioethical values.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".