Differentiating Teachers’ Social Goals: Data and Analysis Files
Bibliographic record
Abstract
These files contain the anonymized data used to create the tables and figures found in "Differentiating Teachers’ Social Goals: Implications for Teacher-Student Relationships and Perceived Classroom Engagement". <br><br>Please refer to the abstract for the paper below: <br><br>Whereas developing meaningful connections with students has long been documented as critical for promoting classroom engagement, teachers’ differing motives for building relationships with students remain underexplored. This study examined teachers’ social achievement goals from a multidimensional perspective in relation to teachers’ self-efficacy, teacher-student relationships, and perceived classroom engagement. Results from practicing K-12 teachers (N = 154) from across Canada showed three distinct goal orientations including social mastery-approach, social mastery-avoidance, and social ability goals (combining social ability-approach and social ability-avoidance goals). Teachers who aimed to develop better social skills with students (social mastery-approach goals) reported higher self-efficacy, better relationships with students, and greater classroom engagement. In contrast, social goal orientations focused on not losing connections with students (social mastery-avoidance goals) or being well-liked (social ability goals) did not correspond with self-efficacy or classroom outcomes. Implications concerning integrative pedagogies and growth mindsets pertaining to relationship building were discussed.<br>
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".