Views of Teachers Working in South-East Anatolia Region Regarding Current Problems in Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to identify the current problems of the teachers working in the provinces of Southeastern Anatolia in Turkey and to list these problems according to their importance. Screening model is used in the study. One open-ended question was asked (identify seven problems related to the education system and order them according to their importance) to 270 teachers working in Gaziantep, Şanlıurfa, Diyarbakır, Kahramanmaraş, Mardin, Şırnak and Adıyaman (Southeastern provinces of Turkey). The collected data were analyzed using quantitative research method. Descriptive and chi-square analysis was conducted to create categories and to determine whether there is a significant difference between the gender, seniority and class-branch. Education problems were classified into six categories: Problems related with 1) School’s physical conditions; 2) Teachers; 3) Education system; 4) Educational management, inspection, planning and economy; 5) Education Programs and training; 6) Students-parents. There is no significant difference between these categories expressed by the teachers. There is also no significant difference among the first seven most expressed problems according to gender, class-branch, and teachers’ seniority.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".