MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2318196681 · doi:10.5539/jel.v5n2p272

Concept Cartoons Supported Problem Based Learning Method in Middle School Science Classrooms

2016· article· en· W2318196681 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ali Günay Balım, Didem İnel Ekici, Erkan Özcan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTürkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu
KeywordsMathematics educationPsychologyPerceptionTest (biology)Problem-based learningControl (management)Scale (ratio)Active learning (machine learning)Cooperative learningKnowledge levelTeaching methodComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Problem based learning, in which events from daily life are presented as interesting scenarios, is one of the active learning approaches that encourages students to self-direct learning. Problem based learning, generally used in higher education, requires students to use high end thinking skills in learning environments. In order to use effectively for secondary students, concept cartoons can be integrated to problem based learning environment. Concept cartoons provide alternative views and help students at problem solving stage. So, in this study the effects of concept cartoons and problem based learning on students’ inquiry learning skill perceptions and levels of relating knowledge with daily life were examined. Two experiment groups and one control group were formed and pre test-post test control group quasi experimental design was used in this research. During four weeks experimental practice, courses were continued with concept cartoon integrated problem based learning in experiment group 1 while only problem based learning was used in experiment group 2 and science program activities was used in control group. 553 sixth grade students (13-14 age group) from 9 different middle schools in Turkey participated in this study. Inquiry learning skills perception scale and knowledge-daily life relating open ended questions were used as data collection tools. In the result of the data anaylsis, it was found that students’ inquiry learning skill perceptions scores differ significantly in favor of experiment groups. However, no significant difference found between groups in terms of knowledge-daily life relation scores.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.339 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations40
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207