Views and Value of an Undergraduate General Education on Advancing Student Attitudes and Engagement with Science
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The enhancement of science literacy is a longstanding educational goal of liberal education programs. We conducted a mixed methods study to investigate undergraduate student science attitudes and engagement with science, with specific interests on student program (science vs. nonscience), level of study (junior: 1st and 2nd year, vs. senior: 4th+ year), and over a single general education science literacy course (pre vs. post). Data were collected through an online questionnaire (n=272) and semi-structured interviews (n=19). We found that self- assessed science literacy was higher post compared to pre, in senior compared to junior and for science compared to nonscience students. In contrast, interest in learning science topics did not increase pre-post or junior-senior but was high overall. Belief in pseudoscience was also high overall, including senior and science students, groups we expected pseudoscience belief to be lower. This work highlights the need to align science curriculum with student interests while differentiating science from pseudoscience topics.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it