Designing Inquiry Based Labs for College-Level Biology Students
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
We report on a practitioner-researcher crafted semester-long biology inquiry-based lab approach which implemented a new script based on conceptual progression.Students were required to make decisions in well-scaffolded contexts relating to each component of the scientific process separately, but progressing in an order supporting the knowledge and skills to be learned, from experimental design and statistical/procedural methods, to formulating hypotheses, and ultimately drawing conclusions.In each module, students took up agency for a single component, but scaffolded within an exploration of the entire scientific process, including reflecting on how their work integrated into a full pre-prepared journal article.The progression concluded with students completing a small comprehensive project on their own.Results were encouraging, as students met the significant challenge of the final project, meaning our approach could serve as a model for other biology instructors.Further research will explore the success of the various scaffolds employed.
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 | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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