The Relationship between Prospective Teachers’ Thinking Styles and Attitudes towards Teaching Profession
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 aim of this study is to determine the prospective teachers' thinking styles, attitudes towards teaching professionand the relationship between thinking styles and attitudes towards teaching profession. Relational survey model wasused in the study. The universe of the study consists of the prospective teachers studying in the Faculty of Theology,Faculty of Theology and Pedagogical Formation Program of a state university in the fall semester of 2017-2018academic years. The sample of the study consisted of 1215 prospective teachers who were selected throughconvenience sampling method. According to the results of the study, prospective teachers preferred the mostlegislative, monarchic, executive, judicial, liberal thinking styles e.g. the hierarchic, conservative, oligarchic andanarchic thinking styles. Prospective teachers' attitudes towards teaching profession are positive. A significantpositive relationship was found between liberal, external, monarchic, executive, hierarchic, legislative, judicial andconservative thinking styles and attitudes towards teaching profession. On the other hand, a significant negativecorrelation was found between the oligarchic thinking style and the attitude towards teaching profession. Therelationship is moderate in liberal and external thinking styles and low in other thinking styles.
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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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