MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3164786649 · doi:10.1002/tea.21714

Science engagement as insight into the science identity work nurtured in community‐based science clubs

2021· article· en· W3164786649 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lydia Burke, Ana Maria Navas Iannini

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Research in Science Teaching · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicScience Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClubEnthusiasmScience educationContext (archaeology)Identity (music)PsychologyPedagogySociologySocial psychologyMedicineGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this article, we explore how children of late elementary to middle school age, from low‐income communities in an East‐Central metropolitan area of Canada, described their interests in and attitudes toward science in an out‐of‐school science club program. We used the children's descriptions of emotional engagement to gain insights into the identity work being carried out in the science club. Our analysis was based on survey responses from 202 children enrolled for at least one academic year in the science club program at 21 different club sites and focus group commentary from a subset of 45 children attending 14 of the clubs. We added context to the children's perspectives by including commentary from semistructured interviews with nine science club staffers and insights from field notes made after club promotional events. Analysis revealed the enthusiasm of children and/or their families for science education prior to engaging with the clubs. The children's anticipation that club science would reflect their school‐based science experiences was quickly dispelled by the hands‐on nature of club activities and the positive relationships built with club staffers. Of concern was the finding that staff and children frequently reinforced a rigid dichotomy between school and club science. This distinction meant that, although children described themselves as improving their performance in school science, they often found it difficult to relate the fun enacted during club sessions to the learning that is required during school science classes. This finding is problematic given the club's focus on keeping children's options in formal and informal science education open for as long as possible. The paper concludes by using the insights provided by children and club staffers to propose ways of enhancing the club/school/home science connection to better support transfer of the positive outcomes of the club‐based science identity work.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0170.021
Scholarly communication0.0110.005
Open science0.0030.017
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.346
GPT teacher head0.595
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Research in Science TeachingSame topicScience Education and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207