Bibliographic record
Abstract
1,127 U.S. high school senior and college undergraduate perceptions of teaching’s prestige, status, and esteem were explored in this study. The population consisted of 302 high school seniors and 825 college undergraduates from the Midwestern region of the United States. The study included 51 statements where participants rated their perceptions of teaching’s prestige, status, and esteem on an 8-point Likert scale. The data was factor analyzed, and the results identified that the perceptions of teaching’s prestige consisted of financial and image perceptions. A descriptive analysis found that U.S. high school senior and college undergraduate perceptions of teaching’s financial component of prestige (M = 9.99, SD = 2.90) and esteem (M = 10.42, SD = 3.05) were more negative in comparison to status (M = 13.38, SD = 2.74). Bivariate correlation, Univariate, and hierarchal linear regression techniques measured the effects that the perceptions of teaching’s prestige, status, and esteem had on U.S. high school seniors and college undergraduate teaching considerations. The results indicated that the perceptions of teaching’s status may encourage U.S. high school seniors and college undergraduates to consider careers in teaching, but the perceptions of esteem may produce opposite effects. The results demonstrated that the perceptions of teaching’s esteem may discourage U.S. high school seniors and college undergraduates scoring in the upper deciles of the ACT (American College Testing) from considering teaching in the United States. The results indicated that the perceptions of esteem may also discourage U.S. urban female high school seniors and college undergraduates from considering the career. Finally, the results demonstrated the perceptions of teaching’s esteem and its interaction with the financial perceptions of teaching’s prestige may discourage U.S. aspiring teachers from the career. This result raises questions as to the “roots” of the early teacher attrition problem in the United States.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".