MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389976714 · doi:10.21810/sfuer.v15i1.6050

Struggles and Triumphs of an Early Childhood STEM Educator:

2023· article· en· W4389976714 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jade Leong, Poh Tan

Bibliographic record

VenueSFU Educational Review · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCareer Development and Diversity
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityEducation and Early Childhood Development
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEarly childhoodEarly childhood educationPsychologyPedagogyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This interview between a researcher (Poh) and an early childhood educator (Jade) delves into pedagogical approaches to teaching Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) in an early childhood classroom setting, focusing on children aged 1 to 5 years. Jade's journey of understanding and exploring STEM teaching is a reflection of the challenges faced by many early childhood educators. The conversation highlights the significance of teacher self-efficacy and experience, as studies show that higher training in STEM results in higher confidence, leading to higher rates of implementation in the classroom. However, research indicates that early childhood educators often lack in-depth professional preparation in math and science, resulting in insufficient content knowledge and a lack of confidence to provide quality STEM experiences for young learners. The researcher, being a scientist and science educator, provides support to Jade's efforts in integrating STEM into her practices. Additionally, collaboration with the community, including volunteers from a science museum and the university, plays a crucial role in bolstering her confidence in engaging with STEM subjects. This interview sheds light on the importance of continuous professional development and support for early childhood educators to effectively implement STEM teaching strategies. By sharing her reflections and experiences, Jade contributes to the development and implementation of integrated pedagogies that bridge the gap between technology, pedagogy, and content. Overall, this interview showcases the transformative impact of collaborative efforts and support systems in empowering early childhood educators to confidently and effectively engage young learners in STEM education.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.635
Threshold uncertainty score0.509

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 teacher head, 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 venueSFU Educational ReviewSame topicCareer Development and DiversityFrench-language works237,207