The Effect of Teachers’ Level of Visual Use on Students’ Visual Reading Skills: Comparison Between the Students of Expert and Novice Teachers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to examine the effect of history teachers’ visual usage level on high school students’ visual reading skills. This qualitative research, consisting of two stages, was carried out using a holistic multi-case study design. In the first stage, 19 history teachers were observed in the classroom and their visual usage status in history lessons was determined (Aslan, 2015). Among these 19 teachers, a total of 4 teachers, 2 experts, and 2 novices, were determined according to their visual usage levels, and the second stage of the research was conducted with their students. The study group consisted of 92 high school students who agreed to participate in the study on a voluntary basis among the students of the teachers identified in 4 high schools. The data required for the research was gathered via “Visual Reading Level Form” which developed by the researchers. Visual Reading Level Form aims to determine the visual reading skill levels of the participants in related sub-skills such as; estimating time and space, identifying persons, events and symbols, recognizing propaganda, understanding the message, and the historical importance of visual. According to research findings, in almost all sub-skills determined in this study, the students of the expert teachers were more successful than the students of the novice teachers. This shows that teachers’ higher levels of visual use precipitate an increase in their students’ visual reading skills.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".