MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033851560 · doi:10.5539/hes.v10n3p26

Investigation of Academic Staff’s Self-Efficacy Using the Educational Internet

2020· article· en· W3033851560 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Okan Gültekin, Sabriye Erkaplan, Hatice Uzun, Esra Güney

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher Education Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEducation Practices and Challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDescriptive statisticsStatisticsScale (ratio)The InternetRegression analysisMedical educationMathematics educationMathematicsMedicineComputer scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Covid-19 pandemic has had negative effects throughout the whole world, including education systems. To overcome this negativity, all educational institutions have turned to internet-based education. However, the educator’s self-efficacy is of more importance in this system. This study aimed to reveal the connection between the University academic staff’s genders, ages, titles (doctorate/non-doctorate), and work year characteristics and their self-efficacy beliefs about their educational Internet usage. The sample consists of 100 [51% (n = 51) female and 49% (n = 49) male] academic staff, who were selected according to convenience sampling in the Faculty of Education and Faculty of Sport Sciences at Uludag University. In this study, the “Educational Internet Usage Self-Efficacy Beliefs” scale, developed by Şahin (2009), was used to collect data. Descriptive statistics refer to number and percentage for qualitative variables; quantitative variables are summarized using mean, median, standard deviation, and minimum and maximum statistics. Univariate analyses used binary group comparisons with the Student’s t-test and relationships between numerical variables and Spearman correlation coefficients. Multiple regression analysis was used, in conjunction with the backward method, for the multivariate linear regression method. Analysis results alpha (Type I error) value was evaluated at the level of 0.05 significance. The mean level of self-efficacy belief of academic staff is 109,42. Since the highest score that can be obtained from the scale is 140, the relationships between scale score and age and duration of service variables are significant according to the univariate analysis, while differences in gender and PhD and non-PhD groups are not significant. When multiple linear regression analysis is applied with the backward stepwise method, age and academic title variables are significant in the model. Additionally, the mean scale scores of PhD academicians are higher than others.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.305
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.088 · 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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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