Beginning Preschool Teachers’ Views Toward Mentoring Programs in Turkey
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".