The Contribution of Learning Outcomes for Listening to Creative Thinking Skills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to examine teacher’s opinions on the contribution of learning outcomes for listening defined in the Ministry of National Education’s Turkish course curriculum for the 6th, 7th and 8th grades to the development of creative thinking skills. Mixed methods research design was adopted in the study. As the quantitative part of the study, a questionnaire titled “Assessment of learning outcomes for listening” was prepared by the researcher and administered to 150 Turkish teachers working at 35 different schools. Interviews were held with 13 teachers about the contribution of learning outcomes for listening to the development of creative thinking skills. The quantitative data obtained from the interviews were analyzed using the content analysis method. The analysis was conducted using frequencies, arithmetic means and the Chi-Square test.The findings of the study revealed that the learning outcomes for listening defined in the secondary Turkish course curriculum contributed to the development of creative thinking skills of students. The gender, seniority, alma mater and educational background of the teachers did not change the results. As a result of the interviews, four categories were identified: “listening outcomes and creativity”, “creative thinking”, “readiness level of students” and “development of thinking skills”.
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 | 0.006 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".