MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Facilitating Scientific Inquiry Skills through Fiction-Based Learning

2024· article· en· W4396665273 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Michael Wong, Avery P. Clavio, John T. Vu, Gian R. Agtarap, Betty Su, Shaaf Farooq, Elizabeth C. Cates

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Bioinformatics, and Biomedical Research
Canadian institutionsMichener InstituteMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationPsychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scientific inquiry skills (e.g., observation, critical analysis, hypothesis generation) are the cornerstone of scientific training, yet these skills are seldom taught. Consequently, an inquiry-based course was created at McMaster University, Science of Fictional Characters, that facilitates students to develop scientific inquiry skills. By analysing the feasibility of fictional characters in the real world, students apply and understand concepts in various scientific disciplines (e.g., biology, psychology, physics). This course embeds a variety of active learning strategies to foster the development of skills relevant to the scientific process, including group projects, written reflections, and Socratic discussions and debates. To gather student opinions about the effectiveness of the course, we administered an end-of-term survey, a modified version of the Course Interest Survey (CIS). This self-reported CIS included five subscales: student attention, relevance, confidence, satisfaction, and scientific inquiry skill development. Of the 17 surveys completed, on average the subscales scored above four on a five-point scale. Additionally, we performed a thematic analysis on 15 reflective assignments. Qualitatively, 10 codes were extracted from the student testimonies, which were grouped into four themes: student satisfaction, perceived applicability, course flexibility, and barriers to learning. Both data types revealed that students were engaged with the course and felt they improved their scientific inquiry skills. Our data further suggest the course would benefit from additional foundational scientific content. Nevertheless, the study provides an example of how fiction and an active learning model can create an engaging, skills-based learning environment in a science course.

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)0.019
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and LearningSame topicGenetics, Bioinformatics, and Biomedical ResearchFrench-language works237,207