Physical Education Teachers’ Views about Character Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to find out the views of teachers of physical education about how they define character education, whether they think national education curriculum and the curriculum of private schools are suitable for character education and whether they think character education can be applied in physical education lessons. Case report design was used in this study which was prepared with qualitative research method. The sample group of the study consists of 6 physical education teachers working in 3 secondary schools and 2 high schools of Kutahya city center which were determined with easily accessible case sampling method, which is one of the purposive sampling methods. Individual interviews which lasted for an average of 15-20 minutes were conducted with physical education teachers within the context of semi-structured interview technique. The participants were informed that the interviews would be voice recorded and later their expressions would be written down to avoid data loss and after necessary permissions were taken, the interviews were recorded. Descriptive and content analysis methods were used to analyze the expressions which were converted into text. The results of the analyses showed that physical education teachers defined character education as changes that occurred in individuals’ behaviors first in the family, then at school and the education conducted to teach individuals socially accepted and correct behaviors. In addition, it was found that the teachers stated that the current curriculum of the country and also physical education curriculum were not suitable for character education; however, since it is a social lesson and since participants are continuously active and in communication, physical education lessons can be more effective than other lessons in terms of character development.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".