Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>In this study, the effectivity of jigsaw method, one of the cooperative learning models, on teaching the concepts related to sense organs and their functions to four-five year-old children in nursery class was analyzed. The study is in the semi-experimental design consisting of experimental and control groups and pretest and posttest. The sample of this study consists of 38 children from the nursery class of Ministry of National Education in Ağrı city center, in 2015-2016 academic years. Two groups determined randomly have been formed. These are: Jigsaw Group (JG, N=20) and Control Group (CG, N=18). In the direction of the goals of this study, a data collection tool has been developed by the researcher to collect data. The test prepared by the researcher to determine the knowledge levels of the students about organs like ear, tongue, eye and skin and senses like hearing, smelling, tasting, seeing and sensing has been used. As a result of the obtained data, it has been determined that cooperative learning model is more effective in teaching the sense organs subject to the children compared to the traditional teaching method.</p>
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".