MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2734007079 · doi:10.5539/ies.v10n7p18

Pre-Service Teachers’ Experiences and Views on Project-Based Learning Processes

2017· article· en· W2734007079 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Funda Dağ, Levent Durdu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicProblem and Project Based Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProject-based learningSemi-structured interviewMathematics educationPsychologyProcess (computing)Qualitative researchTeaching methodEducational technologyPedagogyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Project-based learning (PjBL) has been promoted as an effective and frequently used student-centered learning approach for various learning environments. To have various learning experiences with PjBL is an important requirement for pre-service teachers (PSTs). The purpose of the study was to investigate the experiences PSTs had with group work and collaboration, resources and research methods, the problems they faced, and the strategies they used to overcome these problems during the information and communications technology (ICT)-integrated PjBL process, as well as their thoughts concerning learning processes in PjBL. The participants in the study consisted of 413 PSTs in six different teaching programs who took the course Computer 2. Qualitative methods were used in this descriptive study. The results revealed that PSTs perceived the PjBL processes mostly positively and also that they thought the PjBL process contributed to their learning and helped them gain PjBL skills. PSTs formed groups based on their own preferences. PSTs perceived that the PjBL process based on group work that was implemented advanced their problem-solving and collaboration 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.156
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.328 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicProblem and Project Based LearningFrench-language works237,207