A Qualitative Analysis of the Coping Strategies of Substitute Teachers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study distinguishes whether substitute teachers enact coping strategies that mitigate the source of work-related stress (problem-centered) or coping strategies that enable them to adapt to stress created by work-related stressors (avoidance-centered). The author gathered data for this analysis by conducting 37 in-depth interviews with substitute teachers and shadowing 14 of them for a total of 122 hours of observation. Through a grounded theory analysis, a trend emerged that showed substitute teachers engaged in both problem-centered and avoidance-centered coping strategies, with a slight numerical advantage given to problem-centered strategies. By understanding how substitute teachers deal with these issues, scholars can prepare future generations of substitute teachers with successful coping strategies. Cette étude évalue dans quelle mesure les suppléants ont recours à des stratégies d’adaptation qui atténuent la source de stress professionnel (axées sur les problèmes) ou à des stratégies d’adaptation leur permettant de s’adapter au stress créé par des stresseurs liés au travail (axées sur l’évitement). L’auteur a collecté les données pour cette analyse en passant des entretiens en profondeur avec 37 suppléants et en observant 14 de ceux-ci pendant un total de 122 heures. Une analyse fondée sur une théorie à base empirique a révélé que les suppléants ont tendance à adopter tant des stratégies d’adaptation axées sur les problèmes que celles axées sur l’évitement, les premières affichant un léger avantage numérique. Si on comprend les mécanismes d’adaptation des suppléants, les formateurs peuvent fournir des stratégies d’adaptation valables aux générations de suppléants à venir.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".