Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of visual element and technology supported teaching upon perceived instructor behaviors by pre-service teachers. In accordance with this purpose, whereas the lessons were lectured without benefiting from visual elements and technology in a traditional way with the students included in the control group, in the experimental group, the lessons were lectured using visual elements and technology (PowerPoint, video, etc.) with the pre-service teachers included. In this research that was carried out using an experimental method, “Perceived Instructor Behaviors Scale” developed by Kara, İzci, Köksalan and Zelyurt (2015) was used as pre-application and post-application. According to the findings, visual elements and technology-assisted teaching caused pre-service teachers to perceive their instructors as calmer, more adequate and authoritative. When the probable negative effects of an authoritative instructor upon the students were considered, should sufficient and calm perception of the instructor be supported or should calmness and sufficiency of the instructor be preferred by avoiding technology-assisted teaching which makes the teaching process mechanic?
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".