Impact of outdoor place-based learning on elementary school students’ ability to make unsolicited observations about living organisms over time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our research objective was to investigate whether a place-based educational intervention for elementary school students leads to a better ability to make unsolicited observations about living organisms. We tested the following prediction: Elementary school students who learn about living organisms outdoors in a familiar environment will be able to make more unsolicited observations about living organisms one week after the end of the intervention compared to those two months after the intervention ends. Our study was conducted in the province of Québec, Canada, which resulted in 116 students experiencing the same educational intervention from home. Based on individual telephone interviews, we compared elementary school students’ ability to make unsolicited observations about living organisms one week (Group A, n = 58) and two months (Group B, n = 58) after a place-based educational intervention in their home environment. We developed three emergent categories to analyse students’ place-based unsolicited observations about living organisms. We found that elementary school students who learned about living organisms in their home environment made more unsolicited observations about living organisms leading to factual descriptions two months after the end of the learning experience than those who were interviewed one week after the intervention.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".