Opinions of Prospective Primary School Teachers about Methods and Techniques Suitable for Teaching Science: A Case Study from Turkey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine opinions of a group of prospective Turkish primary school teachers aboutwhat teaching methods and techniques are more suitable to teach science. In addition, their perceived competence inselection of teaching methods and techniques was explored. In Turkey, primary school teachers offer various coursesin the first four years of primary education. Their ability to benefit from teaching methods and techniques suitable forsubjects and courses is considered important in terms of realization of learning. The study was also directed towardsexamining whether third-year university students having taken courses for methods and techniques used to teachdifferent subjects felt competent about selection of suitable methods and techniques.This is a case study using both quantitative and qualitative research methods. Quantitative data were gathered withPerceived Competence Scale for Selection of Teaching Methods and Techniques for Prospective Teachers,developed by Durdukoca et al. (2017). Qualitative data were collected through an open-ended question “Whatteaching methods and techniques do you think you want to use in the future”. All the participants answered thisopen-ended question and completed the scale. Data obtained through the open ended-question were analyzed withcontent analysis.The study sample included 96 third-year students studying in the Department of Primary Education in BucaEducation Faculty of Dokuz Eylül University in the spring term of the 2017-2018 academic year. Quantitative datawere analyzed with SPSS v. 22 and t-test.The prospective primary school teachers were found to plan to use student-centered methods and techniques and tohave high perceived competence concerning selection of teaching methods and techniques. Their perceivedcompetence did not differ between genders and students with different academic performance. Only having apositive perception of competence significantly differed between branches of 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".