The Development of a Pre-Service Teachers Model in Educational Institutions for Students in the Field of Physical Education, Faculty of Education, a Four-Year Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to develop a pre-service teachers model in educational institutions of students in the field of physical education, Faculty of Education, a four-year program, using EDFR (Ethnographic Delphi Futures Research) techniques and focus group teaching techniques conducted by 18 experts and 12 group discussion participants with knowledge and abilities and acting as supervisors, mentors, and heads of professional experience training. The research instruments consisted of a semi-structured interview, questionnaires and group discussion guides. The statistics used in the research were median, mode and interquartile range. The results showed that the development of pre-service teachers in a four-year physical education program consisted of four themes: (a) management of the Faculty of Education, significant in the four-year format, 25 management; (b) organizing the courses, significant in the four-year format and 38 course arrangements; (c) development of students’ competency, significant in the four-year format and development of the 22 competencies; and (d) assessment and feedback, significant in the four-year format and 22-character assessment and feedback.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".