MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W250039886

The Practice of Prospective Science Teachers regarding the Planning of Education Based Trips: Evaluation of Six Different Field Trips.

2012· article· en· W250039886 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aykut Emre Bozdoğan

Notice bibliographique

RevueEducational Sciences Theory & Practice · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueEducation and Technology Integration
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésTRIPS architectureField tripScience educationSociologyQualitative researchClass (philosophy)Medical educationPedagogyPsychologyMathematics educationPolitical scienceSocial scienceEngineeringMedicineComputer science
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract The aim of this study is to explain how planning educational trips out of school environments for training pur-ooses should be as well as to determine the opinions and the practices of prospective science teachers. The study that lasted for two years was carried out in parallel with the elective course Education in Informal _earnmg Environments in the Spring Term of the Academic Year of 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. Thirty-four 4th grade prospective science teachers participated in the study from the Giresun University Education Faculty Science Teaching Programme. In line with the research, educational trips to six different places were organized The research data used in qualitative research observation form and semi-structured interview technique were obtained. The observed results showed that prospective science teachers were careful, willing, and joyful in all field trips and worked in cooperation. The interview results also showed that prospective teachers' knowledge and their self-confidence increased for educational trips for training purposes planned. Key Words Informal Learning Environments, Science Education, Fieldtrip. The class environment's having limited sources to bring in the new knowledge which is acquired with the fast developments in science and technology to the society in an easy understandable, and enjoyable way has caused the need for alternative environments (Bozdogan, 2007; Kisiel, 2007). These places which are described as informal education environments include mass media, sports centres, zoos, botanic parks, woodlands, museums, libraries, aquariums, open air laboratories, nature centres, and a of social areas which we wont be able to count here (Hannu, 1993; Howe & Disinger, 1988). Informal education environments' being fun and natural, the people visiting these places being volunteers and the introduction of opportunity of gaining different experiences and teaching to different age groups of people with different activities can be seen as an advantage (Taylor & Caldarelli, 2004). It was introduced by the researches conducted that different activities which were presented apart from formal education resources were rich teaching resources which made learning more fruitful (Ramey-Gassert, 1997), encouraged learning by different ways which the class environment wasn't able to introduce, helped each student to enlighten themselves in their own paces (Melber & Abraham, 1999) and support the education at school (Gerber, Cavallo, & Marek, 2001; Hannu, 1993). One of the formal education environments which include a lot of fields is the field trips which are organized by the schools. These trips are one of the leading and effective education strategies which attract the attention of students and whose outcomes are permanent. This strategy is one of the ways which provide students unique opportunities to understand the natural environment and promote the sustainability of education. These natural environments help the concepts and complex knowledge which are told in school environment to be observed in its natural environment , to be aware of the real world and it also provides to gain experience at first hand (Bowker & Tearle, 2007; Kola-Olusanya, 2005; Leback, 2007; Rennie & McClafferty 1995; Scarce 1997; Skop, 2008; Tal, 2004b). They can also provide permanent change in the students' knowledge, attitudes and behaviours (Ballantyne & Packer, 2009; Knapp & Barrie, 2001; Orion, Hofstein, Tamir, & Giddings, 1997; Rudman, 1994; Tal & Morag, 2009). However, this condition must not mean that we deny the importance of education which is performed in the class because the best education takes place when a relation between intramural and extramural environments is built and carried out (Ballantyne & Packer, 2006; Kisiel, 2007). Moreover, it is emphasized that the field trips which are well-organised and associated with the school curriculum create successful outcomes (Bowker & Tearle; Kisiel, 2005; Tal, Bamberger, & Morag, 2005). …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,009
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,009
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,049

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0090,022
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,001
Communication savante0,0020,001
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,051
Tête enseignante GPT0,455
Écart entre enseignants0,404 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations18
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEducational Sciences Theory & PracticeMême sujetEducation and Technology IntegrationTravaux en français237 207