MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4323654753 · doi:10.5430/ijhe.v12n2p20

Accentuate the Positive: Special Education Teacher Job Satisfaction and Joy

2023· article· en· W4323654753 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joshua Zale Singer

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Higher Education · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTeacher Education and Leadership Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttritionPsychologyJob satisfactionLikert scaleScale (ratio)Economic shortageTeacher educationValue (mathematics)PedagogyMedical educationSocial psychologyMedicineDevelopmental psychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Special education teacher attrition combined with declining college teacher preparation program enrollments has resulted in a teacher shortage of crisis proportion in America. Additionally, teachers are often underfunded, overstressed, and burdened with societal and political pressures that have been brewing since before the pandemic. In spite of this, teachers continue to value the work they do in their classrooms, and many even find joy in the work that they are doing. This paper examined both teacher job satisfaction by analyzing self-reported, Likert scale data, as well as teacher joy collected through open-ended questioning. Results indicated that teachers reported highest levels of teacher job satisfaction related to coworkers. Teacher joy, however, was reported almost exclusively as a product of working closely with students. These findings have the potential to impact teacher retention and recruitment in positive ways.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.363 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Higher Education→Same topicTeacher Education and Leadership Studies→French-language works237,207→