MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3171892779 · doi:10.1101/2021.06.01.446616

Building Back More Equitable STEM Education: Teach Science by Engaging Students in Doing Science

2021· preprint· en· W3171892779 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah C. R. Elgin, Shan Hays, Vida Mingo, C. Shaffer, Jason Williams

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Bioinformatics, and Biomedical Research
Canadian institutionsColumbia College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumEquity (law)ApprenticeshipEngineering ethicsPsychologyPublic relationsMathematics educationSociologyPedagogyMedical educationPolitical scienceEngineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic is a national tragedy, one that has focused our attention on both the need to improve science education and the need to confront systemic racism in our country. We know that active learning strategies, in particular research experiences, can engage and empower STEM undergraduates, effectively closing the achievement gap for historically excluded persons. The apprenticeship model for STEM training – supervised research under a dedicated mentor – is highly effective, but out of reach for most students. Recent efforts have demonstrated that Course-based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs) can be an effective approach for making STEM research accessible for all. Our meta-analysis of CUREs finds that published examples now cover the breadth of the typical undergraduate biology curriculum. A thoughtfully designed CURE can go beyond foundational knowledge and analytical thinking to include career-related skills, e.g ., teamwork and communication. Similarly, it can be designed with equity as a foundational principle, taking into account the unique contributions of all students and their varying needs. We provide here an example framework (The “ Do Science Framework ”) for making STEM training more effective and inclusive using CUREs. While CUREs do not inherently address equity, there can be no equity in STEM education without equal access to research participation, and progress toward this goal can be achieved using CUREs. However, implementing new CUREs is not a trivial undertaking, particularly at schools with high teaching loads and little or no research infrastructure, including many community colleges. We therefore propose a National Center for Science Engagement to support this transition, building on experiences of current nationally established CUREs as well as the work of many individual faculty. In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, academia has a renewed responsibility to dismantle structural inequities in education; engaging all STEM students in research can be a key step.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.065
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.065
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.283 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicGenetics, Bioinformatics, and Biomedical ResearchFrench-language works237,207