Evaluation of Guidance Teachers' Guidance Competence and Professional Development Processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to evaluate guidance teachers' guidance competence levels and attitudes towards professional development processes. The changing structure of education systems requires students' increasing psychosocial needs and multidimensional crisis environments, the professional roles and competencies of guidance teachers. Guidance adequacy not only includes the theoretical knowledge, but also multifaceted professional equipment such as effective communication skills, commitment to ethical principles and openness to development. In this context, in the study, the competences that guidance teachers should have are defined within the theoretical framework; The applications in Türkiye and the guidance systems in countries such as Finland, USA, Canada and New Zealand have been examined. The findings from the literature screening and the current research on the field show that guidance teachers are mostly engaged in administrative duties in Turkey, that they have difficulty in implementing their competences and that they cannot systematically participate in their professional development processes. In international practices, the roles of guidance teachers are defined more clearly, their professional development is supported by legal obligations and guidance services are carried out more systematically. At the end of the study, it is recommended that the task definitions of guidance teachers in Türkiye should be clarified, the creation of a competence system based on ethical and professional standards and that institutional structures that support continuous professional development should be strengthened.
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 | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".