Üniversitedeki Lisans Ögrencilerinin Ögretimin Kalitesine İlişkin Algıları
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine undergraduate students’ perceptions of teaching quality. The first aim is to adapt the “Course Experience Questionnaire (SCEQ)” scale developed by Ginns, Prosser and Barrie (2007). The second aim is to compare undergraduate students’ studying at five faculties of Adiyaman university as well as students from faculties of education at five different universities. A scanning method was used in the study. Translation validity was used through back translation method. Exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were used for reliability and validity of the scale. The Cronbach’s alfa was determined as 0.83. The scale, adapted to the Turkish context through SPSS and Lisrel. The scale was conducted on 1415 undergradute students studying at five different universities. Students’ perceptions did not differ with regards to teaching quality at faculties of education at universities whether be a newly founded one or not. Students’ perceptions also revealed no significant problem in teaching quality at faculties of education.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".