An Examination of Teacher Experience and Perception of Leadership Effort on Commitment to Stay Using Mediation Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study approaches the idea of teachers’ commitment to stay at their job by considering their perceptions of efforts by leadership to support working conditions in schools. Data from 85,000 teachers from the 2016 school year in North Carolina were used in the mediation analysis. Results show that administrative effort had a direct effect on teachers’ commitment to stay. This effort was mediated by how teachers view the working conditions in their schools, and new and veteran teachers view the impact of administrative effort on their commitment to stay in a similar manner. Policy implications are discussed, along with suggestions for unpacking these data to reveal a more discreet understanding of the internal dynamics of schools. Résumé Cette étude porte sur l’engagement des enseignants à rester à leur poste en fonction de leurs perceptions des efforts déployés par le leadership pour maintenir de bonnes conditions de travail dans les écoles. Les données de 85 000 enseignants de l’année scolaire 2016 en Caroline du Nord ont été utilisées dans une analyse de médiation. Les résultats montrent que l’effort administratif a eu un effet direct sur l’engagement des enseignants à rester. Toutefois, l’impact de cet effort administratif dépendait de la manière dont les enseignants percevaient les conditions de travail dans leurs écoles, ainsi que de la manière dont les nouveaux et anciens enseignants percevaient cet impact sur leur engagement. Cette étude évalue aussi les implications de cet état des choses pour la formulation de politiques et propose des pistes pour interpréter les données afin d’en arriver à une compréhension plus fine de la dynamique interne des écoles. Keywords / Mots clés : leadership preparation, university-school partnerships, leadership field experience, leadership-focused coaching, leadership mentoring / préparation au leadership, partenariats université-école, expérience de terrain en matière de leadership, coaching axé sur le leadership, mentorat en matière de leadership
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 | 0.010 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".