The Opinions of Science Teachers on the Weaknesses and Strengths of LGS and TEOG Systems (The Case of Kars Province)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to determine the opinions of science teachers working in secondary schools in Kars province of Turkey regarding the comparison of the High School Entrance Exam (LGS) which is currently being applied in Turkey and the transition from primary to secondary education (TEOG) which was applied in Turkey before this exam system. The study was conducted with a screening model and data was collected through structured questions. The study group consists of 48 Science Teachers, who have teaching experience “1-10, 10-20 and over 20 years”, working in 13 different secondary schools in Kars. The main categories were tried to be determined using explanatory and inferential codes that appeared in the analysis of forms for teachers' views. As a result of the research, it was found that most science teachers expressed the opinion that it was not necessary to abolish the TEOG and enact the LGS, and that the TEOG exam served its purpose better than the LGS. Again, as a result of the research, it was found that science teachers who thought that TEOG was a stronger test than LGS expressed the opinion that TEOG should be more systematic, process-oriented, be compensated, have more impact on written exams in school, and that the exam should be a process-oriented exam spanning two semesters. It was determined that science teachers who thought that LGS was a stronger test than TEOG had expressed the opinion that LGS was a highly distinguishable test and that LGS questions were questions based on high-level thinking, high selectivity, based on interpretation, requiring knowledge, far from recitation, covering all subjects.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".