To What Extent Will Infusing a Water Quality Monitoring Field Study into the Biology Curriculum Influence Medford Area Senior High School Students' Environmental Values, Behaviors, Knowledge and Action Skills?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Taylor County Land and Water Management Plan was developed in the Spring of 2000. Serving on the citizen advisory committee and analyzing the public opinion survey for this plan encouraged a water monitoring project to be implemented into Medford Area Senior High School's Biology I curriculum. A water quality monitoring field study involving tenth grade Biology I students was developed in the Summer of 2000. The major goal of this project was to improve students' environmental values, behaviors, knowledge and action skills. During the first quarter of the 2000-01 school year, tenth grade Biology I students were evaluated on the project's impacts on students' environmental values, behaviors, knowledge, and action skills using a pre and post environmental survey. Conclusions were drawn based upon the mean scores of the pre and post survey. The survey results indicated that students improved in all four areas from pre to post survey. These results indicate that a student environmental monitoring program conducted for two months does have a large impact on score gains in knowledge. The modest gains in value, behavior and action skills were determined to be inconclusive due to the length of the monitoring project. It was determined that a year long monitoring program may be necessary to meet the goals of the project.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".