The Practice of School Counseling in Rural and Small Town Schools.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Focusing narrowly upon the increasing urbanization and suburbanization of the U. S. population might lead one to view rural and small town schools to be a decreasingly important bit of nostalgia. However, the U. S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics (1998) reported that rural and small town schools comprise 37.8% of the total number of schools and serve 25.4% of the total number of enrolled students. In contrast, 37.2% of all schools, enrolling 33.5% of all students, are in areas defined as large city or medium city. Besides the reality that more than a quarter of U.S. public school students receive their education in rural and small town schools, there are other reasons for examining the nature of school counseling in this context. In a classic study, Barker and Gump (1964) found that small, rural schools were actually equal to or superior to larger schools on such important dimensions as: (a) the range of courses taken by the typical student, (b) rate of extracurricular participation, (c) access to leadership opportunities, and (d) feelings of responsibility. More recently, Cole (1990), while noting the problems of small rural schools, also asserted that these places are home in a society where the idea of home is becoming an abstraction not rooted in place. These places are home: like all homes, some are healthier than others. Like all homes, they are worthy of our very best efforts. (p. 48) The experience of counselors in rural and small town American schools has been the focus of attention in the literature related to school counseling. A number of articles have considered program development issues or matters of day-to-day practice (e.g., Allen & James, 1990; Braucht & Weime, 1990; McLaughlin, 1990; Rose-- Gold, 1991). Also there have been attempts to explore the impact of the rural/small town setting upon the actual and/or preferred role and function of school counselors (e.g., Dinkmeyer & Carlson, 1990; Gothberg, 1990; Hawes, Benton, & Bradley, 1990; Lund, 1990; Matthes, 1992; Saba, 1991; Sutton & Southworth, 1990; Worzbyt & Zook, 1992). However, with the exception of the Matthes and the Sutton and Southworth studies, these explorations were unclear about the breadth of the database upon which the observations were founded and were not specific about the analytical procedures used to develop their assertions and recommendations. Furthermore, we judged that the literature specifically related to counseling in rural/small town schools consisted primarily of opinion pieces (e.g., Dinkmeyer & Carlson, 1990; McIntire, Marion, & Quaglia, 1990; Worzbyt & Zook, 1992), and there were few data-based, systematically designed studies. Though some studies were found to have used questionnaires to develop descriptions of counselor role and practice in small town and rural schools (e.g., Baldo, Quinn, & Halloran, 1996; Matthes, 1992), the descriptive results ultimately rested upon the opinion of an individual or a small group of researchers concerning which aspects of counselor activity were important to include in their survey instruments. Against this broad background of views and assumptions about rural/small town schools, our particular concern was to examine the role and practice of school counseling in this environment. We did this for a number of reasons. The chief of these was our belief that school counselors can and do play an important part in strengthening positive educational and personal attainment for rural/small town students, and that an understanding of the day-to-day realities of counseling in these schools can contribute to the preservation of existing strengths and to the promotion of a positive learning environment. In addition, the study had immediate, practical significance for us since rural/small town schools are settings in which many of our past and current students work as counselors and counseling interns. …
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,002 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».