Opinions of Stakeholders about Evaluation of Middle-School Turkish and English Curriculum Dimensions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the research is to describe the problems in the program evaluation field according to curriculum'sfour different dimensions, to search if the problems differ significantly according to students’ class level andteachers’, administrators’/inspectors’ seniority. The research used one of the quantitative research methods, the fieldsurvey model, which is descriptive research. The population of the research is Samsun city, and the target populationof the research is middle-school students, teachers of Turkish and English branches, inspectors and administratorsworking at secondary schools in Samsun city’s districts Atakum, Bafra, Canik and İlkadım. The research sampleconsists of middle-school students, teachers of Turkish and English branches, inspectors and administrators workingat middle-schools in these districts, chosen with stratified sampling, a random sampling method. In the research,“Survey of Defining Problems about Curriculum Dimensions” is completed by the students, teachers andinspectors/administrators. When the participants’ problems about the curriculum dimensions are examined, it isrevealed that the most common problems they face is the lack of adequacy of functionality, flexibility, practicality,scientificness and actuality of the dimensions of curriculum. It is concluded that students’ issues with programevaluation differ according to their class levels whereas the inspectors’/administrators’ problems with programevaluation do not differ significantly according to their seniority.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.038 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".