MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1612667202 · doi:10.18438/b8702p

Creation of a Research Community in a K-12 School System Using Action Research and Evidence Based Practice

2009· article· en· W1612667202 sur OpenAlex
Susan D. Ballard, Gail March, Jean K. Sand

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

venuePublié dans une revue dont le pays d'attache est le Canada.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueEducational Strategies and Epistemologies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAction (physics)PsychologyPerceptionMedical educationMathematics educationPedagogyMedicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Objective - The purpose of this study was to apply skills developed from an Action Research Training Model (Gordon) in the design of two action research projects to ensure that students are ethical users of ideas and information. It was deemed necessary to assess prior knowledge and attitudes of students and teachers in order to identify issues to be addressed. 
 
 Methods - Both projects employed the use of survey instruments, which presented students with scenarios involving aspects of information use, and asked whether or not the actions in the scenarios were examples of ethical use. The high school survey was administered to 381 students in tenth grade English classes. The elementary survey was administered to 87 students in fifth grade. 
 
 A more comprehensive survey was administered at the high school level. For each student behavior addressed by the survey, there were two questions: one eliciting the teacher’s perception of how often students engaged in that behavior, and the second how often the teacher had to confront a student about the same behavior. Participation was voluntary, and 36 teachers took the survey. 
 
 Results - Surveys administered at the high school level showed that most students have a good understanding of the ethical use of information regarding clear instances of plagiarism. Students’ understanding was less clear in two major areas: creating a bibliography that accurately reflects the sources used to create the work, and the level of collaboration or assistance that is appropriate in completing a research assignment. 
 
 The teacher surveys showed some discrepancy between perception of the frequency of certain types of unethical student behavior and how often teachers challenged students on that behavior. The surveys showed that teachers found plagiarism to be the most prevalent behavior, while obtaining copies of exams and buying papers were the least frequently occurring behaviors.
 
 At the elementary level, results indicated that understanding how to properly cite sources was a major area of concern. Students were also confused about whom to ask for help during the research process. Instructional intervention was developed and applied. The survey was re-administered with the addition of items that were based on the interventions. Responses showed a marked improvement in understanding by at least 20%. Some responses improved by as much as 60%. 
 
 Conclusion - The study validated the Action Research Training Model as the first dimension and conceptual framework that informs and guides instructional practices of school library media specialists and teachers in a K-12 school district. After using the model to examine student-teacher knowledge and understanding of ethical use of information (second dimension), there was recognition of the need to clarify the school’s position on the ethical use of information for teachers and students and provide intentional instruction and interventions for students beginning at an earlier grade level. After being made aware of the results, teachers were anxious to work with library media specialists to address issues and to look for opportunities within research units to collaborate.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,011
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Communication savante
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,899
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,991

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0110,017
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,125
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,281
Tête enseignante GPT0,498
Écart entre enseignants0,217 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle