Students’ Opinions about the Distance Education to Art and Design Courses in the Pandemic Process
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
This research was carried out to determine student views on distance education through art and design courses. The study group of the research consists of 45 undergraduate students studying at different faculties of İzmir Katip Çelebi University in Turkey during the spring semester of the 2019-2020 academic year. The focus of the article is to determine the effect of distance education, which is carried out suddenly, on students' perceptions of art lesson. A semi-structured interview technique was performed in this study which covered qualitative data collection techniques. Findings regarding the positive and negative aspects of distance education were obtained from students in the context of their impact on art classes. The results obtained in the research are as follows: The students who take art lessons via distance education are required distance education, also they do not experience any technical difficulties due to the availability of technology, they lost of motivation, they do not meet their socialization needs, and especially some techniques that require practice in art lessons.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 it