Views of Academic Staff on Physical Education and Sports Teaching Undergraduate Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The general purpose of this study is to find out the views of academic staff working in schools of Physical Education and Sports or faculties of Sports Sciences regarding the physical education and sports teaching undergraduate program. While finding out the views of academic staff, the physical education and sports teaching undergraduate program was examined within 5 different themes under the titles of general evaluation of the program, evaluation of the learning-teaching process, advantages of the program, disadvantages of the program and recommendations relating to the program. Under the theme general evaluation of the program, 4 different sub-themes were examined separately as evaluation of applied courses, evaluation of courses on teaching profession, evaluation of courses on content knowledge and evaluation of general culture and elective courses. The most frequently used qualitative research method, interview technique, was used in the study. A total of 12 academic staff were interviewed. The interviews were voice recorded and transcribed. The transcribed data were evaluated with descriptive analysis method and coded. Interpretations were made by using codes. As a result in general the academic staff stated their views the need to increase the number of applied courses, opening new applied courses, increasing the number of field-specific theoretical courses and updating the program and also their views that vocational courses were sufficient and physical infrastructure was insufficient.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".