MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2336275832 · doi:10.14288/1.0098403

Perceived instructor effectiveness in Canadian prison adult basic education

2010· article· en· W2336275832 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Heather Stewart

Notice bibliographique

RevuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueEducational and Psychological Assessments
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPrisonAdult educationPsychologySocial psychologyPedagogyCriminology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In the latter part of the 1980's, contracting by the Correctional Service of Canada with private and public institutions accelerated. This contracting included provision of educational programs. Therefore, as a result of a new emphasis upon Canadian literacy education during the same period, there arose a need to select numbers of contract personnel who would be effective in prison adult basic education teaching. Subsequently, eighteen teachers in the Ontario and Pacific Regions of the Correctional Service of Canada were subjects of a study that sought information about effectiveness criteria to assist in the selection of teachers for prison adult basic education teaching. The Evaluation of Teacher Behaviors rating instrument established an upper quartile that identified five prison adult basic education teachers perceived as most effective, and a lower quartile of five prison adult basic education teachers perceived as least effective. Teachers completed the Demographic Data Questionnaire, providing information about academic education, teaching experience, additional training and education, and certification. They then participated in a structured, oral interview, the Correctional Teacher Interview Survey, responding to questions about their teaching strategies and their personal beliefs regarding the effects of prison education. Three experienced correctional educators rated these responses according to criteria that suggested possession of qualities such as sense of mission, structure, and empathy. Three teachers from the high group also responded to the Supplementary Questionnaire, which asked for their perceptions of their own schooling, relevant life experiences, and attitudes to their students as individuals. Analysis of the results of the Evaluation of Teacher Behaviors indicated statistically significant differentiation between the two groups on each of eleven criteria, with greatest differentiation for the criteria original, overall effective, adaptable, and stimulating. Analysis of responses to the Demographic Data Questionnaire showed that in the high group there was a greater percentage of teachers who had recently been involved in supplementary training and continuing education experiences. The low group of teachers possessed more years of experience in public/parochial school teaching than did teachers in the high group. The three correctional educators who rated the subject teachers' responses to the Correctional Teachers Interview Survey found that the teachers in the high group scored better on the characteristics clarity, desire to help students grow, structure, and empathy than did teachers in the low group. Analysis revealed that both the students who rated the eighteen teachers on the Evaluation of Teacher Behaviors instrument and the three correctional educators who rated the responses of the same teachers to the Correctional Teacher Interview Survey had, according to these ratings, similarly placed eight of the ten subject teachers in their respective high and low groups. The Supplementary Questionnaire revealed that three teachers from the high group possessed similar experiences in their personal and professional backgrounds and currently employed similar teaching strategies. Findings from this study have suggested that teachers who are perceived effective may possess behavioral characteristics, life and work experiences, and similar teaching strategies that distinguish them from those who are perceived to be low in effectiveness. Appropriate application and interview techniques could be designed to elicit information about these distinguishing elements.

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)0,011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,113
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,228

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,011
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,001
Communication savante0,0020,000
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

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 Opus0,008
Tête enseignante GPT0,246
Écart entre enseignants0,237 · 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'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

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

En bref

Citations0
Publié2010
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Même sujetEducational and Psychological AssessmentsTravaux en français237 207