MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2875075964 · doi:10.5539/ies.v11n8p27

Teaching Materials Development and Meeting the Needs of the Subject: A Sample Application

2018· article· en· W2875075964 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Leadership and Administration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationSubject (documents)Christian ministryFunction (biology)Teaching methodTangentProduct (mathematics)Bridge (graph theory)Computer sciencePedagogyPsychologyMathematicsGeometryMedicineWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been determined that the drawings, photographs and pictures related to the subject of the continuity of the tangent function on page 68 of the Ministry of National Education’s twelfth-grade mathematics textbook contradict principles 1, 7 and 10 of Yanpar’s (2007) teaching material development principles. According to these principles, teaching materials should: i) be simple, plain, and understandable, ii) reflect real life as much as possible, and iii) be easy to develop or revise, if necessary. This study aims to develop a portable tangent bridge model to meet the needs of the subject of the continuity of the tangent function. With this aim: i) teaching with the analogies model in the design of the teaching material, ii) “this is my project” format in the development and iii) Yanpar’s (2007) principles were considered. The design of the model lasted 14 weeks. At the end of the study, a portable tangent bridge model from waste products was designed and developed. This model is thought to contribute to the teaching effectiveness of teachers (Shulman, 1987) with content knowledge alongside with pedagogical knowledge (Shulman, 1986). With this contribution, the needs of the subject as described by Taba (1962) and Tyler (1949) will be met. This model will also serve as an example of meeting the needs of the subjects of knowledge and its product, technology, as highlighted by Cahit Arf (Terzioglu &Yilmaz, 2006).

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.522
Threshold uncertainty score0.672

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.090
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.332 · 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