The Effect of Van Hiele Theory-Based Teaching Educational Package on Achievement Goal Orientation of Student Teachers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to examine the effect of Van Hiele theory-based teaching educational package on achievement goal orientation among student teachers. Research method of this study was quasi-experimental with plan of pretest-posttest and control group. Statistical population includes all student teachers Farhangian University of Isfahan, Iran so that two groups of participants with 176 members were randomly assigned to experimental and control groups responded the standardized questionnaire of achievement goals including four types of orientations mastery-approach, mastery-avoidance, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance. To analyze the obtained data from questionnaire, descriptive statistics and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used. According to the obtained result, the mean difference between pretest and posttest scores of experimental group was significantly more than control group in terms of orientation of mastery-approach (mastery-oriented). This difference was not significant for other variables in two experimental and control groups. People with mastery-oriented goals try to increase their abilities emphasizing on perception, vision and skill. Hence, educational package is suggested to develop and improve competences through increasing the level of understanding and perception of matter in order to professional promotion of teachers.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".