Pogledi študentov na vključevanje informacijsko-komunikacijske tehnologije v pouk naravoslovja
Bibliographic record
Abstract
V prispevku obravnavamo mnenja študentov o uporabi informacijskokomunikacijske tehnologije (IKT) pri pouku naravoslovja.V raziskavi je sodelovalo 39 študentov 1. letnika in 40 študentov 4. letnika Pedagoške fakultete Univerze na Primorskem, študijskega programa Razredni pouk.Podatke smo pridobili s pomočjo anketnega vprašalnika, ki je zajemal tri sklope: (1) ocena afinitete do naravoslovja in usposobljenosti za delo z IKT, (2) mnenja študentov o prednostih in slabostih uporabe IKT ter o uporabi IKT pri delu na terenu, (3) stališča študentov do uporabe IKT pri pouku naravoslovja.Rezultati raziskave so pokazali, da so študenti 4. letnika nekoliko kritičnejši do uporabe IKT pri pouku naravoslovja v primerjavi s študenti 1. letnika, kar lahko pripišemo izkušnjam in znanju, ki so jih študentje 4. letnika pridobili tekom študija.Pri tem bi izpostavili, da se vsi študenti zavedajo, da uporaba IKT nima vedno samo pozitivnih učinkov in da je pri pouku naravoslovja še vedno pomembno izkustveno učenje. Ključne besede: informacijsko-komunikacijska tehnologija,
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".