Beginning Preschool Teachers’ Views Toward Mentoring Programs in Turkey
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main purpose of this study is to reveal the view of preschool teachers who are in the first five years of the occupation about mentoring programs applied to them. To reveal the experiences and opinions of the teachers, the qualitative research design, phenomenology, was used. To determine the preschool teachers who are in the first 5 years of their occupation, criterion sampling from purposeful sampling methods was used. To achieve the purpose, the semi-structured interview form was applied to the teachers. The answers were analysed by using descriptive analysis approach. As a result, the teachers said that they have problems in communication and classroom management because both they are inexperienced and they are working with small age children. To overcome these problems, they develop their own ways mostly with trial and error. In addition, in the process of pre-service teachers’ education, they feel lonely. In the process, they do not take any help from any experienced teacher or any other helping resources. Also, they claim that the pre-service teacher trainings do not serve for the aim, and the process is just a formality. It is offered that teachers might be adapted to the profession with the help of special professional trainings and quality mentoring programs.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it