Conceptual Teaching Based on Scientific Storyline Method and Conceptual Change Texts: Latitude-Parallel Concepts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to identify the conceptual mistakes frequently encountered in teaching geography such as latitude-parallel concepts, and to prepare conceptual change text based on the Scientific Storyline Method, in order to resolve the identified misconceptions. In this study, the special case method, which is one of the qualitative research methods, is used and it was conducted with a holistic one-state pattern. As a result of the two-stage diagnostic test applied to fifty (50) ninth-grade students attending a high school in Nevşehir, some preliminary information about the misconceptions about the latitude-parallel concepts have been determined. Students were asked questions about latitude-parallel concepts. The responses obtained from the questions were evaluated with four criteria; understanding, limited understanding, not understanding and misunderstanding. In the study, introductory scientific storyline, which is one of the scientific storyline techniques, has been included in the logical stage of conceptual change text. The concepts are hidden in the narrative, and aimed at the students' analysis and exploration. In the study, it was determined that the students had confused the concepts of latitude-parallel and described them as circular shapes. Conceptual change text has been prepared for eliminating these misconceptions in students.
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 | 0.012 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".