MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401555702 · doi:10.1002/fer3.48

Science, technology, engineering, & mathematics, curricular integration, and the story form

2024· article· en· W4401555702 on OpenAlexafffund
Emily Krushelnycky, Douglas D. Karrow

Bibliographic record

VenueFuture in Educational Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAttention Economy in Education and Business
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersMinistry of Colleges and UniversitiesBrock University
KeywordsMathematics educationComputer scienceEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract As science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education continues to increase in popularity, it becomes imperative that generalist preservice teachers (PT) have both strong concept knowledge and pedagogical skills to properly support its integration. However, generalist PTs do not have enough knowledge or skills possessed by those in STEM's respective disciplines, impacting their perceptions of how the framework is disseminated. The finger, then, is pointed at PT education to provide the necessary education and training that would allow for high‐quality STEM education beginning at the elementary level. One novel approach to mitigate this problem is to introduce Kieran Egan's education theory on imagination (mythic understanding) and the theory of integrated curricula to PT. Throughout this philosophical inquiry, we explore integrated curriculum models, imagination (mythic understanding) and storytelling, illustrating how they may appear in a STEM‐oriented lesson within an elementary science PT course, and attend to the need for approachable, evidence‐based interventions regarding generalist PT 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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFuture in Educational ResearchSame topicAttention Economy in Education and BusinessFrench-language works237,207