Opinions of Graduate Students of Social Studies Education About Qualitative Research Method
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 purpose of the study is to determine the opinions of graduate students from social studies education regarding the qualitative research method. The study was conducted in accordance with the phenomenological design, one of the qualitative research designs. The sample group of the study was composed of 25 postgraduate students including 11 females and 14 males studying in the Department of Social Studies Education in Division of Turkish Language and Social Sciences Education of Educational Sciences Institute, in Firat University in the spring semester of the 2019-2020 academic year. The sample group was determined with criterion sampling, one of the purposeful sampling methods. The data of the study were obtained through interview method by using semi-structured interview form. Content analysis method was used in the analysis of the data obtained in the study and the qualitative data analysis program was employed to assess the data. It was determined as a result of the study that the graduate students expressed the qualitative research method as sensitivity to the natural environment, in-depth examination of a social phenomenon, and revealing perception and experiences. Since the qualitative research experience positively affect the knowledge and skills of the graduate students towards the study, they should be included more in the research environment and process. In addition, during the qualitative research process, graduate students should be encouraged and directed to academic activities.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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