The Views of Turkish Language Teachers and Primary School Teachers on Teacher Guidebooks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study aims to determine the views of primary school teachers and Turkish language teachers on teacher guidebooks in Turkey. The mixed research method and “convergent parallel design” were used in the study. The quantitative study group of the study included 163 primary school teachers (1st-4th grades) and 163 Turkish language teachers (5th-8th grades) in Turkey, while the qualitative study group included 6 primary school teachers (1st-4th grades) and 6 Turkish language teachers (5th-8th grades). The study population included primary school and Turkish language teachers in Turkey. The 23-item survey included the measures of main trands (such as mode, median, average), while the qualitative data were based on the transcripts of teacher feedback audio recordings. Determination Validity Ratio was calculated based on the validity and reliability tests conducted on the survey tool. During the analysis, the SPSS 21.0 software was used. The qualitative data were analyzed with content analysis. Furthermore, averages, percentages, and frequencies were calculated for a section of qualitative data. In the validity and reliability tests for the qualitative data, the views expressed in audio recordings were analyzed several times by 3 field experts using content analysis, and they were categorized as sub-topics.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".