XVIII IOSTE Symposium : Book of Proceedings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the major aims of science education is scientific literacy. The nature of science (NOS) is one of the main goals of achieving scientific literacy. The aim of the study is to determine chemistry teachers' views' of NOS; to develop their views with explicit-reflective activities based on their initial understandings and to investigate their views about science. The study was designed as a qualitative case study. 6 female and 5 male chemistry teachers who were also master students in chemistry education department participated in the study. The data of the study were collected with Views of Nature of Science Questionnaire-Form C (VNOS-C) and interviews with the participants. The data was analyzed by content analysis. Generic and context-specific NOS activities were used to underline the NOS aspects in the intervention. The findings showed that chemistry teachers held nave and eclectic understanding of NOS prior to the intervention. Even though a small number of teachers still held their eclectic ideas, most teachers stated more informed views after the intervention. In the light of the findings, some recommendations will be given for future science education and NOS studies.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".