Geography Teachers’ Opinions Regarding the Teaching Field Knowledge Test in the Public Personnel Selection Exam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The number of teacher candidates is increasing as a result of the excessive quotas given to departments that train teacher candidates and the right to teach different branches with pedagogical formation certificates. Therefore it becomes compulsory to hold selection exams in teacher appointments. The exams carried out during this selection process undergo changes over time both in number and content. While exams containing questions of general knowledge, general ability, and educational sciences were used in teacher appointments in Turkey since 2002, the field knowledge test has also been applied since 2013. Geography is also one of the branches in which the field knowledge exam is applied. This study aims to evaluate the field knowledge exam according to the views of geography teachers. The study conducted in a phenomenology pattern, one of the qualitative research methods, was carried out with 25 geography teachers determined by criterion sampling methods. The data collected through semi-structured interviews were analyzed by descriptive analysis method. Direct quotations are included to increase the reliability of the research. In line with the opinions of the geography teachers, it was determined that as it increases teacher competence, taking the field knowledge exam is important and necessary. The majority opinion is that increasing the number of questions in the field knowledge exam in 2019 increased the content validity of the exam. As it caused changes in the questions, the field knowledge exam duration was considered to be excessive by some participants. According to the views of the geography teachers, undergraduate education did not coincide with the scope of the field knowledge test. It was determined that most of the candidates went to the course in the exam preparation process in order to fill the deficiencies. As a result of the research, it is recommended that the number of questions in the field knowledge test, the content validity should increase further, and the effect of the field knowledge test on the scoring basis for appointment should be further increased.
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 | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".