Impact of Argument-Based Laboratory Method on Scientific Process Skills of Pre-Service Primary School Teachers and Their Views of The Nature of Science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study aimed to determine the impact of argument-based laboratory method on the scientific process skills of pre-service primary school teachers and their views on the nature of science.The study was designed based on the pretest-posttest quasi-experimental method and conducted with 64 sophomore pre-service primary school teachers (37 in the experimental group, 37 in the control group) studying a Primary Education Department. The dependent variables of the studies are the views of the pre-service primary school teachers on the nature of science and their scientific process skills, while the independent variable of the study was argument-based laboratory application The nature of science scale and scientific process skills tests were used as the data collection tools. The Argument Driven Inquiry approach was employed in the experimental group, while a conventional laboratory approach was implemented in the control group. The findings of the study revealed that the argument-based laboratory method have improved the student views on NOS and their scientific process skills.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".