Reformed Teaching and Learning in Science Education: A Comparative Study of Turkish and US Teachers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Achievements of educational reform advantage constructivist understandings of teaching and learning, and therefore highlight a shift in beliefs of teachers and apply these perceptions to the real world. Science teachers’ beliefs have been crucial in understanding and reforming science education as beliefs of teachers regarding learning and teaching science impact their practice. The purpose of this study was to compare US and Turkish science teachers’ beliefs about reformed learning and teaching science. As an instrument, we used Beliefs about Reformed Science Teaching and Learning (BARSTL) to collect and measure the teachers’ beliefs regarding teaching and learning science education. We used an independent-sample t-test to analyze Turkish and American science teachers’ beliefs about reformed learning and teaching science. In total, 38 science teachers from the US and 27 science teachers from Turkey participated in this study. Results showed that US science teachers’ beliefs about reformed learning and teaching science are statistically higher than Turkish science teachers. The results of this study also indicated that although American and Turkish science education aim similar constructivist views on learning and teaching science, American science teachers hold more reformed beliefs in science teaching and learning than their Turkish colleagues.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".