ALGORITHM FOR IMPLEMENTING QUEST TECHNOLOGIES IN RESEARCH WORK WITH PRESCHOOL AND PRIMARY SCHOOL CHILDREN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The origin of the definition "quest" and the use of quest technologies in traditional education have been well theoretically analysed and substantiated. In particular, a quest could be a type of collective creative work, scientific/educational competitions or excursions in the traditional form of organising educational activities. However, with the transition to digital education, the implementation of quest technology has changed. It continues to be seen as a motivational tool for learning, a creative form of work in the educational programme. But, according to our observations, this type of work is declining in the online format. We will discuss the reasons for this and options for replacing quest technologies in this description. It is worth noting that in order to achieve the goal of our study, we turned to the basic requirements for organising a Web Quest, recommendations for its design, convenience according to the age category of children, clarity of instructions, etc. The next step was to compare online education technologies that had similar characteristics to the quest (computer games, educational applications and platforms, RPGs, video quests, VR audiences, etc.) This allowed us to draw a conclusion about their common roots and concepts, as well as to understand the reasons for the decline in scientific interest in the topic of the quest itself. After analysing the available open access publications, we concluded that this is not enough to understand the reasons for the decline in interest in this form of online work. After all, street quests are still popular. That is why we interviewed students specialising in preschool and primary education who had the opportunity to create Web Quests and participated in them. The feedback from future specialists on the implementation of quest technology in online and offline formats directed us to describe the reasons for refusing this technology in the online format of the educational process and allowed us to confirm the list of possible substitutions for quests for the research activities of preschool and primary school students suggested above.
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 | 0.015 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.004 |
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".