Students’ Views on the Nature of Science in an Interdisciplinary First-Year Science Program: Content Analysis of a Weekly Reflection Activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A primary aim of science education is to teach students how to interpret and engage with scientific information. To do so effectively requires an adequate understanding of the nature of science (NOS)—in other words, what science is and how it works. There is a long history of evidence to suggest that many undergraduate students struggle to properly understand NOS. While the specific factors contributing to misinformed views on NOS may be difficult to tease apart, the way in which students learn about science at the undergraduate level is a significant contributor. We implemented a reflection activity in a unique first-year program at a large Canadian university in order to promote student learning of NOS. Through the students’ reflections, we identified how certain pedagogical approaches, many of which deviate from traditional teaching methods used throughout undergraduate science education, can positively impact student comprehension of NOS. Our experiences support the use of reflective practices in promoting critical thinking and the development of more nuanced student views of NOS.
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 | 0.028 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".