Pre-service and Practicing Teachers’ Commitment to and Comfort with Social Emotional Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although teachers’ beliefs about social-emotional learning have become a topic of interest, understanding how they relate to teachers’ own social-emotional competence is unknown. We used a predictive correlation design to examine how Canadian pre-service (n=138) and in-service (n=276) teachers’ beliefs about social-emotional competence relate to their comfort with and commitment to social-emotional learning, and how both sets of beliefs are related to their perceived efficacy for classroom management and engagement with students. Regression analyses revealed that comfort with social-emotional learning significantly predicted both outcomes for both groups whereas commitment to social-emotional learning did not. Perceived social-emotional competence also played an important role. Pre-service teachers felt more committed to social-emotional learning, whereas in-service teachers felt more comfortable and believed they had higher levels of social-emotional competence themselves. Implications for supporting the development of teachers’ own social-emotional competence and suggestions for future research are provided. Si les croyances des enseignants relatives à l’apprentissage socio-affectif suscitent beaucoup d’intérêt, on ignore le lien entre celles-ci et la compétence socio-affective des enseignants eux-mêmes. Nous appuyant sur une conception de corrélations prédictives, nous avons examiné le lien entre les croyances des stagiaires (n=138) et des enseignants en exercice (n=276) relatives à la compétence socio-affective d’une part, et l’aise et l’engagement dont ils font preuve face à l’apprentissage socio-affectif, d’autre part. De plus, nous nous sommes penchés sur la mesure dans laquelle les croyances des participants sont liées à leur perception de l’efficacité de leur gestion de classe et de leur engagement avec les élèves. Des analyses de régression ont révélé qu’un sentiment d’aisance avec l’apprentissage socio-affectif prédit de manière significative les deux résultats pour les deux groupes alors que ce n’était pas le cas pour un engagement face à l’apprentissage socio-affectif. La perception de la compétence socio-affective a également joué un rôle important. Les stagiaires avaient un sentiment d’engagement plus fort envers l’apprentissage socio-affectif, tandis que les enseignants en exercice se sentaient plus à l’aise et croyaient que leur niveau de compétence socio-affective était plus élevé. Nous présentons quelques implications d’appuyer le développement de la compétence socio-affective des enseignants et des suggestions pour la recherche à l’avenir.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".