The Relationship Between Physical Education Teacher Candidates’ Epistemological Beliefs and Academic Self-Efficacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between physical education teacher candidates’ epistemological beliefs and academic self-efficacy beliefs. The research group consisted of a total of 220 preservice physical education teachers (age = 22.32 ± 1.514), 99 female (45%) and 121 male (55%), studying at the Faculties of Sport Sciences of four different universities in the 2022-2023 academic year. A correlational survey model was adopted to examine the relationship between physical education teacher candidates’ epistemological beliefs and academic self-efficacy levels. The personal information form and Epistemological Belief Scale that Schommer (1990) developed and Deryakulu and Büyüköztürk (2002) adapted and the Academic Self-Efficacy scale that Ekici (2012) developed consisting of three sub-dimensions and 33 questions were used as data collection tools. It was found that preservice physical education teachers had high levels of epistemological beliefs, and it was determined that the academic self-efficacy levels of the teachers were low.
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 | 0.013 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".