Balancing Emotions for Effective Teaching: Cultivating Teacher Well-being in TESOL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to examine the extent to which Saudi Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) teachers appreciate teacher well-being, perceive the significance of balancing emotions for effective teaching, and establish a compassionate classroom culture that promotes learner well-being and learning achievement. The study also investigates the Saudi TESOL teachers' perceptions of the importance of the mixed-methods research design for exploring teacher well-being. The study applied a quantitative design, administering an online survey to a sample of 59 Saudi TESOL teachers with varying educational levels and experience. The findings indicate that Saudi TESOL teachers consider emotions to be highly important for effective teaching, though they report placing moderate importance on cultivating strategies to support their own well-being. Additionally, they perceive the use of mixed-methods research to explore teacher well-being as moderately important. The study results indicate that prioritizing teacher well-being can significantly influence student learning outcomes underlining the role of educational institutions in considering this an important factor in quality enhancement on their campuses.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".