How to Improve Students' Comprehension concerning the Major Terms of Functional Groups?--In the Experiment of OrCheTaboo Game
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this research, for an effective learning of concepts in the scope of functional groups in organic chemistry, it has been developed as “Organic Chemistry Taboo (OrCheTaboo)” which is an educational activity by the researchers. The aim of this study is to analyze the effect of the game OrCheTaboo on learning of concepts related to functional groups. The study group of the research consists of 62 students who took the Organic Chemistry Laboratory Course in the spring term and they enrolled in the Department of Secondary Science and Mathematics Education of a Faculty of Education at a state university in Turkey. Quasi-experimental design with pretest-posttest control group has been used. As a result, the game OrCheTaboo gives the opportunity to be in conceptual development processes like describing the terms to the students, identifying from the other terms or establishing its similar characteristics with the other terms, put their relation forward. Because of these characteristics, while turning the complicated and difficult terms, the game has a positive and active role.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".