MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413396399 · doi:10.3390/educsci15081079

Who Aspires to Become a Teacher? Findings from a Cohort Study Tracking Young People from Age 10/11 to Age 21/22

2025· article· en· W4413396399 on OpenAlexaff
Emily MacLeod, Louise Archer, Jennifer DeWitt

Bibliographic record

VenueEducation Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTeacher Professional Development and Motivation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersEconomic and Social Research Council
KeywordsTracking (education)CohortMathematics educationPsychologyPedagogyMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Against a backdrop of severe and long-standing teacher shortages, in this paper we present analyses of over 60,000 survey responses collected via a cross-sectional cohort study that sampled young people in England over a period of 11 years; at ages 10/11, 12/13, 13/14, 15/16, 17/18, and 21/22. These methods allow us to explore how common teaching aspirations are amongst young people at different ages, and who aspires to become a teacher as a future career. Analysing both free-text and Likert-scale data, we find that many more young people express an interest in becoming a teacher than is reflected in teacher recruitment data, and that teaching aspirations are patterned by gender and ethnicity. Girls and young women, as well as young people who identified as White, were significantly more likely to be open to teaching than their peers. Our findings suggest that teaching is a common back-up, or second-choice career aspiration, and that many individuals who report an earlier interest in teaching do not go on to become teachers. We end the paper with reflections on how these findings might be used to increase and diversify teacher recruitment, as well as recommendations for future research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEducation SciencesSame topicTeacher Professional Development and MotivationFrench-language works237,207