MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891356659 · doi:10.5430/wje.v8n5p24

Analysis of the Views of Preschool Teachers on Their Professional Work

2018· article· en· W2891356659 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hikmet Zelyurt

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Education · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTeacher Professional Development and Motivation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeniorityPsychologyProfessional developmentTest (biology)Work (physics)Vocational educationMathematics educationPedagogyMedical educationMedicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The general objective of the present study was to assess the views of pre-school teachers on their professional work.Since the research aimed to describe the current status of professional work, it was designed with the survey model.The study group included 105 pre-school teachers determined with the single-stage sampling method. The data werecollected with Views on Professional Work Questionnaire for teachers (MEB, 2006). The data obtained in the studywere analyzed using the SPSS 21.0 software. The Mann-Whitney U-Test and the Independent Samples t-Test wereused to compare the differences between the quantitative data when there are two groups, and one-way ANOVA wasused to compare the group parameters between more than two groups. The study results demonstrated that the viewsof pre-school teachers on professional work were at a good level in terms of both the beginning and the end of theyear professional work and the fulfillment of teachers’ needs by the professional work. However, the views ofpre-school teachers on the beginning and the end of the year professional work and the fulfillment of teachers’ needsby the professional work did not demonstrate a significant difference based on gender, seniority in the teachingprofession, place of employment and participation in activities on vocational studies during the previous three yearsvariables.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.174
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of EducationSame topicTeacher Professional Development and MotivationFrench-language works237,207