Exploring Pre-service Science Teachers’ Perspectives on the Nature of Science: A Comparative Study Between China and Canada
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
The Nature of Science (NOS) is an important component of scientific literacy. Science teachers’ Views of the Nature of Science (VNOS) directly affect their teaching behaviors. Therefore, it is of great significance to explore science teachers’ VNOS and find ways of improvement. This study was designed to comparatively investigate preservice science teachers’ VNOS between China and Canada. The study employed a survey design to explore how Chinese and Canadian preservice science teachers understood the seven different aspects of NOS. Data showed that preservice science teachers in China and Canada both hold a modern view about science education. The level of Chinese and Canadian participants’ understanding of NOS was above the relatively naive level. Chinese teachers had better macro-understanding toward science education, but their micro-mastery was insufficient. The Canadian participants had a better understanding of the NOS than their Chinese counterparts. The study suggested that there is a need to reconstruct the preservice science teacher education curriculum in China and promote the transformation in the science teacher educational system.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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