MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125244687 · doi:10.5539/jel.v10n1p82

Comparing Pre-Service Teachers’ Self-Confidence Levels in Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Terms of Several Variables

2021· article· en· W3125244687 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Erol Süzük, Tuncay Akıncı

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicScience Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCronbach's alphaTurkishScale (ratio)Mathematics educationPsychologyGeographyPsychometricsCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to investigate and compare pre-service teachers’ self-confidence in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) concerning their gender, department, and owned digital technologies. To achieve this goal, the survey method was conducted as part of a quantitative method design. Participants of the study consisted of 252 pre-service teachers from four different concentrations: physics, chemistry, biology, and german language teaching. TPACK Self Confidence Scale (TPACK-SCS), which was constructed by Graham, Burgoyne, Cantrell, Smith, and Harris (2009) and adapted to Turkish by Timur and Taşar (2011), was used as the data collection tool. TPACK-SCS is a scale with 4 sub-dimensions as Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK), Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK), Technological Knowledge (TK), and Technological Content Knowledge (TCK). The Cronbach’s Alpha internal reliability coefficients of the scale were calculated between .78 and .94. Since the data obtained did not show normal distribution it was analyzed by Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal Wallis - H tests. According to the results, significant differences were found in the level of self-confidence and sub-dimensions of students’ TPACK according to gender, department, and owned digital technologies for education.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.258

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.252
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.188 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicScience Education and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207