Perceptions of Classroom Working Alliance and Student Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Positive teacher-student relationship has been established as an important contributor to students' social, behavioral, and academic adjustment. Nevertheless, current research has not employed relationship measures that examine both teachers' and students' perceptions. Furthermore, the measures currently being used lack breadth in the definition of the teacher-student relationship. Using the construct of "working alliance" from counseling psychology, this study investigated teachers' (n=14) and elementary school students' (n=53) perceptions of their working alliance and explored how this construct relates to student performance. Teachers' and students' ratings on subscales of the Classroom Working Alliance Inventory (CWAI) were found to be significantly related to one another. In addition, regression analyses demonstrated that both teachers' and students' ratings of working alliance contributed significantly to ratings on the Student Performance Questionnaire (SPQ). Un rapport positif entre l'enseignant et l'élève s'est avéré être un facteur important qui contribue à l'adaptation sociale, comportementale et académique des élèves. Néanmoins, la recherche actuelle n'a pas employé de mesures des rapports qui examinent à la fois les perceptions des enseignants et celles des élèves. De plus, les mesures actuelles manquent d'envergure quant à leur définition du rapport enseignant-élève. Empruntant de la psychologie thérapeutique la construction de l'alliance de travail, nous avons étudié les perceptions qu'ont les enseignants (n=14) et les élèves de l'élémentaire (n=53) de leur alliance de travail et avons examiné dans quelle mesure cette construction joue un rôle dans le rendement des élèves. Nous avons trouvé une relation significative entre les cotes des enseignants et celles des élèves aux sous-échelles de l'inventaire de l'alliance de travail en salle de classe (Classroom Working Alliance Inventory). De plus, les analyses de régression ont démontré que ces cotes, tant celles des enseignants que celles des élèves, ont contribué de façon significative aux cotes du questionnaire sur le rendement des élèves.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".