TÜRKİYE VE KANADA’DA İŞLENEN FEN VE TEKNOLOJİ DERSLERİNİN KARŞILAŞTIRMALI ANALİZİ
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, the performing of science and technology lessons in Turkey were compared with those in Canada, which has a very good level of science success. In Canada and Turkey totally five different science and technology classes were observed for the units of “Matter and Heat” and “Optics” using comparative case study approach with “observation method” to have an idea about performing of science and technology lessons. Mostly differences were noted between the physical properties of science classes of both countries. When the observations of unit of “Light” in 7th grade in the Turkish Science and Technology Curriculum (TSTC) and unit of “Optics” in 8th grade in the Ontario Science And Technology Curriculum (OSTC) and unit of “Matter and Heat” in 6th grade in TSTC and unit of “Heat” in 7th grade in OSTC were generally evaluated, similarities and differences were noted for teaching techniques and it was seen that mostly individual studies were performed in Canada. Differences are remarkable according to similarities between two countries in the measurement and evaluation methods and implementing science projects in lessons.Key words: Science education, comparative education, 2005 Science and technology curriculum, observation method
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".