Fostering student inquisitiveness in secondary science classrooms
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Students' interest, achievement, and motivation in science declines as they reach secondary school.This in turn leads to fewer students pursuing further education and subsequently, careers, in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields.Given the importance of STEM in a thriving society, it is of value to address how to increase students' interest, achievement and motivation in science.Increasing student inquisitiveness in science class is one way to do so.To explore how teachers encourage student inquisitiveness in their science classes, I conducted classroom observations and semi-structured interviews with three secondary science teachers at an independent school.Findings indicate that the participants were affected by barriers such as: following a mandated curriculum, preparing students for the next level of education, and preparing students for standardized exams.Yet, teachers used a variety of strategies to encourage student inquisitiveness including: making the learning interesting, modeling question asking, encouraging students to ask questions, and giving students autonomy.Findings from this study provide insights to teachers, not only of science, looking to for ways to encourage their students to be inquisitive, even when facing barriers that may limit their teaching practice.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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 it