MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2000760883 · doi:10.1177/003172170909000516

20 Minutes to Change a Life?

2009· article· en· W2000760883 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ben Levin

Notice bibliographique

RevuePhi Delta Kappan · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueTeacher Education and Leadership Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésConversationPsychologyClass (philosophy)Mathematics educationPedagogySociologyComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Sometimes, there is serendipity in the way an idea comes to us from several different places at about the same time, making it seem like something that really requires our attention. In the last couple of months, I've had three different reminders of the difference that teachers can make to the futures of students, especially in high schools, and often with a remarkably small investment of time and effort. It seems that in many cases as little as 20 to 30 minutes of supportive adult attention can move a student from the wrong path to the right one. My first encounter with this idea was in a conversation with Amanda Cooper, a high school teacher who is now a graduate student at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. She recounted talking with colleagues about working with students in difficulty. At one point in their conversation, she asked the group how much time they needed with a student to change that student's trajectory in the school from negative to positive. The group concluded that quite often 20 minutes of concentrated time with a student was enough to make a significant change in the student's attitude, outlook, and behavior. Then, last March at the American Educational Research Association conference, Susan Nolen, a friend and professor at the University of Washington, said she asks teachers working with her to spend 30 minutes out-of-class time--for example, during the lunch hour--just getting to know a student with whom they don't relate very well. She reports that teachers overwhelmingly say this simple step not only gives them a deeper and more positive understanding of the student, but often dramatically alters the way the student engages in their class. Once students feel that the adults involved actually are interested in who they are, their willingness to make a positive contribution increases. The third instance of the same idea was in the September 2008 issue of Educational Leadership. An article on seeing the best in students cited work by Ray Wlodkowski about something he calls a by strategy (Smith and Lambert 2008). For two minutes a day for 10 consecutive days, a teacher has a personal conversation with a difficult or challenging student about something the student is interested in. The authors report that this simple strategy will almost always yield noticeable improvement in the student's attitude and behavior in the class. These are remarkably similar and remarkably encouraging conclusions. When evidence from different sources points in the same direction, it increases confidence that the findings are truly valid. Every time share this finding with educators, get further confirmation. A high school principal in Winnipeg recently told me about that school's graduation, in which each graduate is asked to say something about himself or herself. Very often, graduates name someone--a teacher, a parent, or someone else--whose belief and support they felt was crucial to their success. I could not have made it without X is the typical comment. Occasionally, it's the opposite: This is to show Mr. Y that can do it after all. Further reinforcement comes from studies showing how many adults, decades later, can recall, with considerable emotion, a remark made by a teacher that either was vital in encouraging them or, sadly, sometimes had the opposite effect. All these pieces of evidence support a point that emerges powerfully from the research on dropping out of high school--that the single biggest factor in whether students try or give up, leave or stay, is their sense that somebody in the school knows who they are and cares about what happens to them. Study after study has pointed to the importance of those personal connections in giving students, especially those facing real challenges, the desire to persist. These ideas put a new slant on the effort to improve high school success and graduation rates. Around the world, large-scale improvement has proven to be considerably more difficult in secondary schools than in elementary schools. …

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,097
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,325

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,012
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0050,003
Communication savante0,0050,007
Science ouverte0,0010,006
Intégrité de la recherche0,0040,007
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0970,049

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 Opus0,279
Tête enseignante GPT0,416
Écart entre enseignants0,137 · 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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePhi Delta KappanMême sujetTeacher Education and Leadership StudiesTravaux en français237 207