MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2895977650 · doi:10.5430/wje.v8n5p63

Investigation of Turkish and Italian Students’ Perceptions of the Concept of "Mathematics Teacher" through Metaphor Analysis

2018· article· en· W2895977650 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bilge Peker

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Education · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEducation Practices and Challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurkishMathematics educationMetaphorPerceptionPsychologyStatement (logic)Literal and figurative languagePedagogyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main purpose of the present research is examining the Turkish and Italian students’ perceptions of the concept of"mathematics teacher" through metaphors. The study group of the research consists of 167 Turkish and 112 Italianstudents, the total of 279 students in the same age group. Students were asked to use another concept defining what“mathematics teacher” meant for them and to explain why. For this purpose, the data of the research were collectedby each student’s completing the statement "A mathematics teacher is like ..., because …." Content analysistechnique was used to analyze and interpret the obtained data. According to the findings of the research, the studentsdeveloped a total of 255 valid metaphors. These metaphors are divided into 9 different conceptual categoriesaccording to their common characteristics. According to the results of the analysis, Turkish students developedmetaphors on the didactic quality of mathematics teachers and Italian students developed metaphors aboutpersonality traits of mathematics teachers. Additionally, Turkish male students developed metaphors about the factthat mathematics teachers were their constant supporters. These findings are believed to have resulted from themathematics teaching styles of math teachers and the cultural factors.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.274 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of EducationSame topicEducation Practices and ChallengesFrench-language works237,207