Do students notice stress in teachers? Associations between classroom teacher burnout and students' perceptions of teacher social–emotional competence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The goal of the present study was to investigate the link between elementary school teacher burnout and students' perceptions of teacher social–emotional competence (SEC). A total of 676 Grades 4–7 students in 35 classrooms rated their classroom teachers' SEC. In addition, teachers self‐reported their current level of experienced burnout at work (i.e., depersonalization and emotional exhaustion). Multilevel analyses revealed significant classroom‐level variability (i.e., 34%) in student‐ratings of teacher SEC. Teacher burnout significantly predicted student‐rated teacher SEC, over and above significant student‐level variables (school self‐concept, sense of autonomy in the classroom) and contextual variables (teacher age, school neighborhood income). Specifically, higher levels of teacher burnout were related to receiving lower SEC ratings by students. Teacher burnout explained a significant portion of the classroom‐level variability in student‐rated teacher SEC. The present study emphasizes the link between teacher burnout and the SEC. Furthermore, given that teacher reports (burnout) were linked to student reports (teacher SEC), these findings also suggest that students notice stress in their classroom teacher.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".