MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W802606477 · doi:10.12738/estp.2013.3.1452

Öğretmenlerin Performans Görevlerini Hazırlarken ve Uygularken Karşılaştığı Sorunlar

2013· article· tr· W802606477 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mustafa Metin

Notice bibliographique

RevueEducational Sciences Theory & Practice · 2013
Typearticle
Languetr
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueEducational Methods and Analysis
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRubricCurriculumTurkishMathematics educationPsychologySample (material)Task (project management)Data collectionPreferencePedagogyEngineeringSociologyMathematicsChemistry

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

AbstractThe aim of study is to determi nate the difficulties of teachers in preparation and implementation of performance task. This study was carried out with 25 teachers (5 science and technology, 5 primary, 5 mathematic, 5 so- cial science and 5 Turkish teachers] who working at elementary schools in Artvin. Sample of study is selected randomly. Case study research method was used in the study. Data gathered with interview, observation and documentary data collection tolls. Obtained data were analyzed with content analyses method. At the end of the study, it is ascertained that teachers do not determine appropriate topics for students' level and appropriate criteria for topics and have i nsufficient knowledge about how prepared rubrics. Besides, it is seen that teachers encounter some difficulties such as crowded classroom, insufficient ti me for assessment, insufficient learning environment and technological opportunity and they do not do objective assessment.Key WordsPrimary Teaching Curriculum, Measurement and Assessment, Alternative Assessment, Performance Assessment, Performance Task, Teachers' Difficulties.Curriculum composed of four dimensions such as aim, content, organization of learning activities and evaluation (Demirel, 2008). While determining aims and contents of curriculum, it is benefited from educational philosophy and also as composing organization of learning activities of curriculum it is made use of educational psychology (Cepni & Cil, 2010). In Turkey, while behaviorist approach was considered in the past, now cognitive approach is adopted in curriculums (Cepni & Cil, 2010). It is seen that this preference is effective to changing of teaching methods and techniques in organizations of learning activities and measurement and assessment approaches in evaluations component of curriculums.Measurement and assessment have important role that determine to development of students' cognitive, affective and psychometric skills, resolve to learning deficiencies of unsuccessful students and motivate to successful students (Semerci, 2007). Measurement and assessment is used different purpose in different phases of instructional activities. These assessment types are diagnostic assessment (Pluss, 2002; Wright, 2001), formative assessment (Bryant & Timmins, 2002; Metin & Biricci, 2009; Metin & Ozmen, 2010a) and summative assessment (Birgin, 2003; Pluss, 2002; Wright, 2001). Summative assessment have commonly used in education systems.Summative assessment is sufficient that students are classified into successful or unsuccessful or de- termining whether students learn some knowledge and skills in units or not (Calik, 2007). Validity of summative assessment which only assessed to stu- dents' outputs is reviewed together new curriculum and chancing of learning approach is effected to changed measurement and assessment approach (Fourie & Van Niekerk, 2001).New curriculum have been defended that opportu- nity of multi-type assessment is presented by stu- dents in order to demonstrating their knowledge, skills and attitude (Milli Egitim Bakanligi [MEB], 2005). It is impossible that this situation is carried out by summative assessment. So, it is adopted to alternative assessment instead of summative assess- ment in the new curriculum. One of the differences of alternative assessment from summative assess- ment is the assessment of student performance. This mentions the importance of performance as- sessment.Performance assessment tries to establish what students can do as district from what he/his knows (Mehrens, 1992). It focuses on doing something, not merely knowing, and on process as well as product (Linn & Gronlund, 2000). Performance assessments are defined as concrete and authentic tasks that require students to do something with their knowledge and skills, such as give a demonstration or presentation, or write a report (Nitko, 2004; Shavelson, 1994). …

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)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
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 enseignants0,014
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,048

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0020,001
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0140,003

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 Opus0,035
Tête enseignante GPT0,403
Écart entre enseignants0,368 · 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

Citations24
Publié2013
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEducational Sciences Theory & PracticeMême sujetEducational Methods and AnalysisTravaux en français237 207