MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2892877590 · doi:10.5539/ies.v11n10p16

Use of Slowmation in Biology Teaching

2018· article· en· W2892877590 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ferit Karakoyun, İ. Ümit Yapıcı

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEducation Practices and Challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreativityMathematics educationPsychologyTeaching methodTeacher educationLiteracyMultimethodologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of the study was to investigate the views of preservice teachers about use of slowmation in biology teaching. In the study, descriptive model was used. The participants were 12 third-grade preservice teachers in the department of Biology Education at Ziya Gökalp Education Faculty of Dicle University in the Spring Term of the academic year of 2016-2017. The research data were collected via observations and semi-structured interviews. In the research process slowmation activities were carried out with preservice biology teachers and at the end of these activities the preservice teachers’ views about the activities were determined. The data collected in the study were analyzed using the content analysis method. As revealed by the analysis of the data, the preservice teachers thought that the slowmation activities contributed to the development of some 21st century skills such as creativity, communication and cooperation skills, information literacy, research skills, technology and media literacy skills. In addition, the preservice teachers reported that the process of creating slowmation was interesting and that they entertained in the process. On the other hand, the preservice teachers also stated that it was difficult to create scenarios and that they experienced problems with the materials used. Moreover, it was seen that the preservice teachers faced problems with the video editing software and that they experienced disputes regarding the distribution of duties during group works. The preservice teachers also put forward suggestions regarding the use of slowmation activities in biology teaching saying that teachers and students could work together in the application process; that activities could be carried out to summarize the subject and to increase permanency; and that different tools and software programs could be used.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.881
Threshold uncertainty score0.669

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.320
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.159 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicEducation Practices and ChallengesFrench-language works237,207