MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3138652957 · doi:10.5539/jel.v10n2p139

History Teachers’ Opinions about the Treatment of Values Education

2021· article· en· W3138652957 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kadir Ulusoy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicValues and Moral Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurkishCurriculumValues educationPedagogySociologyHigher educationPsychologyMathematics educationMedical educationPolitical scienceMedicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the most common concepts in the field of education in the 21st century is undoubtedly values education. In addition to the procedures related to values education in schools, the acquisitions and processes related to values education are constantly updated in each curriculum. In this process, history lesson curriculums have been one of the courses in which the procedures related to education of values have been started. As well as the explanations and information in the programs, how values education is handled in the lessons, teachers’ studies and observations are also important. In this study, teachers’ opinions were asked about the treatment of values education in history lessons. For this reason, a study was conducted with 30 history teachers using a semi-structured interview form in October-December 2019. In the findings obtained in the study; providing alternative activity examples instead of providing only definitions and knowledge in history curriculum and textbooks, processing case studies about Turkish culture in accordance with the level, ensuring accessibility of materials in schools and providing materials free of charge, conducting activities that can prevent peer bullying, activities and operations on women’s rights attention was drawn to issues such as increasing the cooperation between teacher-family and students.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score0.695

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicValues and Moral EducationFrench-language works237,207