Teaching of the Subject of Solids Through Problem-Based Learning Approach
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the study is to investigate the attitudes of prospective science teachers towards the use of problem-based learning methods in the learning of concepts related to the subject of solids, and their opinions on its role in academic success, science process skills and the chemistry course. The study group consists of 83 prospective teachers studying in the science education undergraduate program. The experimental group and control group were determined by random sampling method. The problem-based learning method was used in the experimental group and the traditional approach was used in the control group. The experiment was carried out in a period of 5 weeks. As data collection tools; "Solid Concept Achievement Test", "Science Process Skill Test" and "The Attitude Scale toward Chemistry" were used. In the research, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), independent t-test and statistical methods with descriptions were used. The results showed that problem-based learning is more effective than the traditional approach to understanding the concepts related to solids by prospective teachers. The differences in academic achievement between the experimental and control groups in this study were parallel with the other results reported in the literature. Also, in terms of prospective teachers' development of science process skills and attitudes towards chemistry, it was seen that there was a significant difference between the groups in favor of problem-based learning.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it