Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to investigate the views of pre-service teachers who have taken the "Science Teaching" course in the undergraduate program of classroom teaching about the teaching of science concepts. In this study, the phenomenology study approach, one of the qualitative research designs, was used. The study group of this research consisted 75 pre-service teachers, 56 female and 19 male, studying in the third year of the undergraduate primary teaching program of a state university. In this study, the views of the pre-service teachers who took the science teaching course about the teaching of science concepts were determined through four open-ended questions followed by face-to-face semi-structured interviews with eight participants. It can be said that the idea that prototype examples should be given about a concept in concept teaching is known by pre-service teachers (82.3%). It was observed that the pre-service teachers were aware of a misconception about force as a science concept (90.7%), but they had difficulty writing the main views of learning theories (48.0%). It is an important detail that the participants did not see the exams as tools to eliminate misconceptions at a high rate (82.7%). Interviews were conducted with eight participants who volunteered and had available time about the answers they wrote for four open-ended questions. It was seen that the participants’ opinions supported the findings of this study. Some suggestions were made based on the findings of the study.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".