Examining the Scientific Argumentation Implemented Through a Social Constructivism-Based Curriculum Designed for Primary Science Education in a Confucian Heritage Culture: A Case Study in Vietnam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study describes the improvement of a science curriculum based on a social constructivist approach in order to support primary students in a Confucian heritage culture in practicing scientific argumentation. The former design is adjusted by the application of an adapted model of the learning placemat for argumentation and by the formulation of concrete teaching-learning activities which are articulated with the application of the adapted learning placemat. The practice of a designed curriculum unit reveals that the designed curriculum can support the primary students in practicing scientific argumentation and in attaining consensually agreed knowledge. Nevertheless, the study also shows that primary teachers and students in a Confucian heritage culture do not pay much attention to the activities of qualifying and rebutting in scientific argumentation. The study recommends that further developmental research needs to deal with the refined problem of how to improve qualifying and rebutting in scientific argumentation in the practice of science lessons in a Confucian heritage culture.
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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".