MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971131381 · doi:10.5539/ies.v12n9p27

The Predictive Power of the Pre-Service Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Beliefs upon Their Preparedness to Teach

2019· article· en· W2971131381 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Birsel Aybek, Serkan Aslan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEducation Practices and Challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSelf-efficacyPreparednessPredictive powerPsychologyData collectionContext (archaeology)Sample (material)Descriptive statisticsRegression analysisScale (ratio)Medical educationMathematics educationSocial psychologyMedicineStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study is to reveal the relationship between pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs and preparedness to teach. In this context, the model of the research is the relational screening model. The sample of the study consisted of 407 fourth grade pre-service teachers who were studying in a state university. Data were collected using three types of data collection tools. These, personal information form, self-efficacy belief scale and being ready for teaching. In the analysis of the data, correlation analysis, descriptive and multiple linear regression analysis were used. As a result of the research, it was determined that the pre-service teachers’ readiness and self-efficacy beliefs were high. In the study, it was found that there was a moderately significant and predictive relationship between the pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy belief and preparedness to teach. Various suggestions have been made based on the results of the research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicEducation Practices and ChallengesFrench-language works237,207