Views of Sports Sciences Students About Distance Education During Covid-19: SWOT Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is aimed to examine the views of the students of the Faculty of Sports Sciences on distance education with SWOT analysis and to evaluate the current circumstance. The phenomenology design was used in the study. The research group consisted of 62 students studying at Afyon Kocatepe University Faculty of Sport Sciences located in a town in the Aegean region in Turkey. In collecting the data, the personal information form created by the researchers and the semi-structured interview form was used, and the data obtained were analyzed by content analysis and descriptive analysis technique. As a result of the findings, it was seen that the views of the students studying in the field of sports sciences on the strengths of distance education provided the best conditions in the Covid-19 process, gained experience in synchronous-online courses and the online system, and to reinforce the knowledge by making use of projects and assignments. Views on the weaknesses of distance education were expressed as the inability of every student to benefit from the right to education under equal conditions, difficulties in accessing the internet, and lack of materials. Besides, the views on the opportunities of distance education were determined as good management of the process, planning the applied courses face-to-face, that is, choosing the hybrid system, motivating the students for the assignments and projects, and making up compensatory programs applied to solve the problems. Socialization of students, unsuitable working environment, anxiety, and negative views of the society towards the education system were recorded as threats and dangers.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".