MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380987870 · doi:10.24918/cs.2023.26

Facilitating Scientific Literacy Through Writing: A Write-to-Learn Assignment for Large Introductory Undergraduate Biology Courses

2023· article· en· W4380987870 on OpenAlexafffund
Ayuni Ratnayake, Cindy Naw, Karolyn Keir, Aarthi Ashok

Bibliographic record

VenueCourseSource · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto ScarboroughDirectorate for Biological Sciences
KeywordsCuriosityCritical thinkingMathematics educationMetacognitionLiteracyProcess (computing)Writing processScientific literacyVariety (cybernetics)PedagogyPsychologyComputer scienceScience educationSocial psychologyCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Write-to-learn (WTL) assignments have been used in a variety of disciplines to encourage conceptual learning and critical thinking in undergraduate education. These assignments focus on facilitating rather than assessing learning. Conversely, write-to-communicate (WTC) assignments (e.g., lab reports and exams), often with the goal of assessing learning, are more commonly employed in foundation STEM courses. We developed a WTL assignment that focuses on promoting curiosity driven learning, critical thinking, and metacognition; skills that promote students’ scientific literacy through writing. We integrated theoretical frameworks for scientific literacy, that include the sub-constructs of third space, authenticity, and multiple discourse as well as science as a human endeavour, and metacognition and self-direction (1, 2) to develop this 3-part WTL assignment. In this assignment, students first select a topic of interest and write freely on their current understanding of the topic (Part 1). They then develop a research question based on their writing and seek answers to their question from published literature (Part 2). Finally, they reflect on their overall experience with the WTL process and propose further avenues of investigation for their research topic (Part 3). Student feedback suggests that they enjoyed the WTL process and their overall satisfaction with the structure of the assignment was high. As we continue to evolve the assignment based on student feedback, we are gratified that students reported high self-efficacy with regard to future writing as a result of participating in this assignment. We recommend use of this type of WTL assignment in large, introductory STEM courses, so as to facilitate rather than simply assess students’ learning. Primary Image: Scientific literacy through writing. Schematic depicting a write-to-learn assignment format implemented in an introductory undergraduate biology course, along with corresponding science literacy constructs.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.004

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCourseSourceSame topicEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207