Student success and the high school-university transition: 100 years of chemistry education research
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 100th anniversary of the first article (published in 1921) examining student success and the high school to university transition in chemistry provides an excellent opportunity to consider what has – and has not – changed in chemistry education. This review details the development and findings of chemistry education research specifically as it relates to student learning and success over this extended time period. After considering the changing educational context and definition of success, this research will be described under three main themes: different ways of knowing (learning objectives and outcomes), thinking (scientific reasoning and problem solving), and learning (preferences and approaches to studying). A key finding is that while our understanding of effective teaching and learning has advanced significantly since the early 1900s, so too have the curriculum expectations and cognitive demands placed upon students increased significantly. Thus despite the many advances and innovations in chemistry education, an achievement gap persists between high school and post-secondary education for many students to this day. A comprehensive picture of the factors influencing student success developed from the research literature not only helps understand this disconnect; it also provides an opportunity to reflect on lessons learned for teaching, learning, and directions for future research.
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 | 0.015 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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