Effectiveness of professional suitability scale in assessing teaching suitability among primary school teachers in Tanzania
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study intended to evaluate effectiveness of professional suitability scale (PSS) in assessing primary school teachers’ suitability for teaching profession in Tanzania in an attempt to address the challenges of professional unsuitability among teachers in Tanzania. Specific objectives of this study were to explore the structure, validity and reliability of PSS in assessing the professional suitability among primary school teachers, to examine effectiveness of PSS in measuring differences in professional suitability among teachers by region and to examine the effectiveness of PSS in measuring differences in professional suitability between teachers in private schools and government schools. Data were collected among 365 primary school teachers using 26 items of the PSS. Principle Component Analysis (PCA) revealed that PSS is a valid four-factor scale comprised of social, practical, personal, and ethical suitability. It was also found out that PSS is a reliable tool with an internal consistency of Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of α =.79. Results further revealed no significant difference in professional suitability by region but found out significant difference in professional suitability with school ownership and school performance category (Low versus High Performing Schools). It was concluded that although PSS is an effective tool for measuring professional suitability among teachers, the difference in school performance by region or ownership can just partly be explained by teachers’ professional suitability. It was recommended that PSS may assist employers in assessing their employees’ suitability for teaching and that future studies may undertake a validation study for further improvement of the PSS.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".