The Effect of Teacher Candidates’ Perceptions of Their Initial Teacher Education Program on Teaching Anxiety, Efficacy, and Commitment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a novel approach to initial teacher education, we combined a program review perspective and a psychological perspective. First, we assessed the extent to which student teachers (n=137) felt that components of their BEd program prepared them for teaching and whether these components represented meaningful program dimensions. Through content analysis, exploratory factor analysis, and teacher candidates’ own words, five dimensions emerged: classroom dynamics; curriculum, instruction, and assessment; intrapersonal reflection; ethics of teaching; and professional learning community. Second, we tested how each of these dimensions predicted teaching anxiety, efficacy, and commitment. The results from regression analyses showed that ethics of teaching was the most influential dimension by decreasing anxiety and increasing efficacy and commitment. Results are discussed in terms of the effect of initial teacher education program dimensions on the psychosocial development of teacher candidates. Adoptant une approche novatrice à la formation initiale des enseignants, nous avons combiné une perspective visant l'examen des programmes avec une perspective psychologique. Nous avons d'abord évalué la mesure dans laquelle les stagiaires (n=137) estimaient que des composantes de leur programme d'études (B.Ed.) les avaient préparés pour l'enseignement et à quel point ces composantes représentaient des dimensions significatives de leurs programmes. Cinq dimensions ont découlé des analyses du contenu, des facteurs exploratoires et des propres paroles des stagiaires : la dynamique en salle de classe; le programme d’étude, l’enseignement et l’évaluation; la réflexion intrapersonnelle; l’éthique et l’enseignement; et les communautés professionnelles d’enseignement. Nous avons ensuite évalué dans quelle mesure chacune de ces dimensions constituait une variable explicative de l’anxiété, l’efficacité et l’engagement en enseignement. Les résultats sont présentés en fonction de l’effet des dimensions du programme de formation initiale des enseignants sur le développement psychosocial des stagiaires.
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 | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".