A Family Affair: Caring in Teaching and Implications for Teacher and Researcher Preparation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore how perceptions of remembered instances ofteacher caring in K-College impacted the motivation of a college student. Implicationsfor teacher preparation programs and educational research were then drawn from theseperceptions. The first part of the title “A Family Affair” stems from the fact that theauthors are members of the same family – Father, Mother, and Son. Both the father andmother had prior knowledge of some (not all) of the instances of caring and non-caringdescribed by their son and thus shared a privileged insider position that offered uniqueinsights while cooperative peer checking was used both during and after the interview tohelp promote the trustworthiness of findings. It was found that the degree of caringshown by teachers had a profound influence on the participant’s willingness to put fortheffort especially in those courses that were not his favorite subjects which suggests that astrong connection exists between caring and student motivation. An importantimplication of this study is that teachers and those responsible for teacher preparationprograms would benefit by being aware of the impact of caring on students’ engagementand attitude toward learning. If the ultimate purpose of educational research is tocontribute to effective teaching, then the “soft variable” of caring should be consideredan important component of researcher preparation. It is hoped that readers will find thisstudy to be transferable to the degree that it resonates with their own experience asteachers, students, and parents, and which we refer to as “experiential validity”.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".