ELEMENTARY PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS CONCEPTUAL REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT THE CHARGE POLARIZATION: ELECTROSTATIC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We use a qualitative research method to identify the conceptual representations of eighty pre-service teachers from Quebec. To this end, we have constructed a paper-pencil questionnaire consisting of four questions lasting sixty minutes, which they have completed as part of a course on science teaching. Analysis of all the data indicates that the pre-service teachers interpret the phenomena related to the charge polarization by referring mainly to three representations. The first involves opposing charges, the interaction of which seems to justify the event observed. The second relates to an equilibrium mechanism that redistributes the charges between the objects. Finally, the third relies on an accumulation of charges and its possible flow when certain conditions met. These alternative conceptions have also been identified by other researchers (Bilaland & Ero, 2009; Criado & Garcia-Carmona, 2010;). So that these future teachers do not transmit their false conceptions to their students, we should first help them to discover the law of attraction and repulsion between rubbed bodies and between rubbed and neutral electrical materials, and this, by carrying out different experiments. Unlike traditional teaching, they will discover the various interactions between rubbing the object with different materials and unusual conditions as carried out at the very beginning of the development of electrostatic before studying the atomic model. Then, we will present to them some historical.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".