MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897801842 · doi:10.5430/wje.v8n5p160

6th Grade Students’ Views about Mathematical Teaching Based on Technology Integration

2018· article· en· W2897801842 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Filiz Tuba Dikkartın Övez, Ozan Deniz Kıyıcı

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Education · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Technology Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationProcess (computing)Technology integrationInformation and Communications TechnologyComputer scienceTeaching methodEducational technologySoftwareMultimediaPsychologyWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study is to determine the opinions of 6th grade students towards teaching applications developed onthe basis of Planning-Practicing-Evaluation model which is an ICT integration model for effective mathematicsteaching. While teaching process was designed, Moodle which is a learning management system was used in order touse teaching applications together in a systematic and planned way. Throughout the teaching process, ICT resourcessuch as interactive board, computer, GeoGebra dynamic geometry software, web 2.0 tools (digital stories, videos,animations, games) were used. 33 sixth grade students participated in the research. The case study of qualitativeresearch methods was used in the study. Students' opinions on teaching practices were collected throughsemi-structured interview method. The obtained data were analyzed by content analysis. As a result, it wasdetermined that the students expressed their opinions towards learning practices increases comprehensibility of thesubjects, provides learning opportunities by make and experience, develops positive attitude towards mathematicsteaching, attractive and interesting, they associate daily life with mathematics and increases the desire to participatelessons with having catchy lessons.

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)0.002
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.643
Threshold uncertainty score0.712

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.383 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of EducationSame topicEducation and Technology IntegrationFrench-language works237,207