Bee The CURE: Increasing Student Science Self-Efficacy, Science Identity, and Predictors of Scientific Civic Engagement in a Community College CURE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
civic engagement where research is relevant to the community where the research is taking place. PoP-CUREs have potential to build students' knowledge, skills, value, and self-efficacy when engaging with the public using science skills (i.e., scientific civic engagement). A mixed-methods sequential explanatory design utilizing surveys and semistructured interviews was used for this study (Warfa, 2016). Students made gains in science self-efficacy over the course of the semester and showed a trend of increasing science identity in both Fall 2021 and Spring 2022 semesters. Students' scientific civic knowledge, or a student's sense of how to use or apply knowledge and skills to help a community, increased significantly, while other predictors of scientific civic engagement started high and remained high throughout the course. Bee the CURE demonstrates psychosocial outcomes that are similar to previously studied CUREs and expands our understanding of how PoP-CUREs might influence outcomes with evidence that an important predictor of future scientific civic engagement increases. Implications for PoP-CURE instruction at Hispanic serving community colleges are discussed.
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 | 0.033 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".