Views of Turkish Language and Literature Teachers and Their Managers Related to Professional and Organizational Socialization Processes of Turkish Language and Literature Teachers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p class="apa">Teaching Turkish effectively and successfully is one of the main functions of all the teaching phases of Turkish education system. In secondary education, this duty mostly depends on Turkish Language and Literature teachers. The aim of the research named “Socialization of Turkish Language and Literature teachers” is to evaluate the process of vocational and organizational socialization of Turkish Language and Literature teachers according to teachers and the school managers’ view. This study includes 85 Turkish Language and Literature teachers and 62 school managers’ view who work in Erzincan city centre in 2013-2014 school year. In this study “The Scale of Turkish Language and Literature teachers’ socialization variables”, of which reliability and validity were analyzed, was used. According to findings both Turkish Language and Literature teachers and the school managers perceive “the process of in-services training” very inadequately within the context of practices that includes vocational socialization. Generally, school managers accept Turkish Language and Literature teachers’ “organizational socialization” less inadequate than teachers do. Turkish Language and Literature teachers and school managers think that social status of the teachers in Turkey “none”. The results show that Turkish Language and Literature teachers’ socialization practices cannot contribute to teachers’ vocational adaptation and dedication. In parallel with the results, it is suggested that in the context of vocational development and socialization of teachers in Turkey, specifically Turkish Language and Literature teachers, national norms which are compatible with international standards should be developed.</p>
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".