Preserving the educator’s morale in the workplace: Three Ontario principals’ and two Ontario teachers’ perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study presents data from five interviews to offer an understanding of workplace realities that impact the Ontario educator’s morale by asking the following research question: From the perspectives of three Ontario principals and two Ontario teachers, what are the contributors to the demoralization of Ontario educators? Teresa Amabile and Steven Kramer’s work The Progress principle: Using small wins to ignite joy, engagement, and creativity at work (2011) is the lens through which the teacher’s “inner work life,” or morale as it is named in this study, is examined in relation to the teacher’s perception that his or her work is meaningful. Five veteran educators identified the following constructs as demoralizing to the Ontario educator: the current hiring processes for school boards; the “us versus them” stance perpetuated by educator unions; the frequency of Ministry and school board initiatives; and the perceived erosion of the teacher’s professional identity. The discussion and analysis that follows demonstrates that morale is often an under-valued and “imperceptible” phenomenon with strength to cripple any enterprise not attuned to its value.
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 | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.048 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".