Exploring Chemistry Professors’ Methods of Highlighting the Relevancy of Chemistry: Opportunities, Obstacles, and Suggestions to Improve Students’ Motivation in Science Classrooms
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
This study focused on inquiring into undergraduate chemistry professors’ efforts in North America to increase student motivation and interest in the subject and the feasibility of methods that connect students to real world applications and societal issues related to chemistry. A survey was distributed to chemistry instructors at post-secondary institutions across the United States and Canada asking about the usage of methods and tools to deliver content aiming at raising students’ perception of the relevance of learning chemistry (N = 124). The instrument also asked about instructors’ perceptions related to assessment, as well as their perception of how their students value the integration of socio-scientific issues into the curriculum. A chi-squared analysis was performed to identify groups of individuals whose responses were disproportionate, compared to the distribution of responses from the sample, in order to identify any unique occurrences. In general, the usage of real-world applications and socio-scientific issues in post-secondary chemistry courses tends to be related to instructors’ value of the role of these topics in their courses, comfort level with the topics, and preferred approaches to developing and implementing the course materials.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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