Investigating the effect of subject specialisations, academic performance, and gender on pre-service teachers’ nature of science beliefs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study sought to understand how students’ subject specialisations, academic achievements and gender influence the belief about nature of science (NOS) they hold at the end of their four year Bachelor of Education (B.Ed) degree programme in South Africa. The study was underpinned by an epistemological development theory. It was a quantitative study which involved one hundred and seventeen fourth-year students registered for a four-year Bachelor of Education degree, of whom 72 were females and 45 were males. The study revealed the following: (i) Most fourth year pre-service students were neither naïve nor sophisticated in their conception of NOS beliefs when they exited the programme. Students NOS beliefs also differed with respect to whether they were female or males. Overall, female students were slightly more sophisticated in their NOS beliefs than their male counterparts. (ii) The study also revealed that specialising in Physical Science, Life Sciences, and Technology had no effect on NOS beliefs held by both male and female students. (iii) However, male students specialising in Mathematics were found to hold more sophisticated NOS beliefs and these beliefs were significantly superior to their female counterparts. (iv) Students who academically performed at a distinction level had significantly superior NOS beliefs than those whose academic performance was just at a pass level. (v) Female students specialising in Physical Science had superior beliefs about how scientific knowledge is generated.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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; 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".