MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2562494227 · doi:10.5539/ies.v10n1p245

The Team-Based Internal Supervision System Development for the Primary Schools under the Office of the Basic Education Commission

2016· article· en· W2562494227 sur OpenAlex

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

RevueInternational Education Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueSchool Leadership and Teacher Performance
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCommissionProcess (computing)Plan (archaeology)Process managementQuality (philosophy)Medical educationPsychologyEngineering managementEngineeringComputer scienceBusinessMedicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Internal supervision in the school is currently experiencing various problems. Supervision preparation problems are related to: lacking of supervision plan, lacking of holistic and systematic planning, and lacking of analysis in current conditions or requirements. While supervision operational problems are included: lacking of supervision cooperation, lacking of knowledgeable and skillful supervisors, and lacking of feedback to supervisees. Problems in evaluation are included: lacking of ongoing supervision and monitoring in a systematically and continually manner. Whereas, supervision is t continuation of a system based on the participation of all parties involved. This is a procedure in management of academic for controlling quality in education.The research aimed 1) to study the components of the team-based internal supervision system for the primary schools under the Office of the Basic Education Commission, 2) to examine the current states and desirable characteristics of the team-based internal supervision system, 3) to develop the team-based internal supervision system, and 4) to evaluate the use of the team-based internal supervision system for the primary schools under this study. The research and development process was divided into four stages: 1) System study and analysis: it was concerned with studying and analyzing the components evaluated by the experts; current states and desirable characteristics were studied from 380 primary schools. 2) System design and development: in this stage data obtained in the first stage were used to design and develop the team-based internal supervision system; three experts evaluated the system. 3) System application: the system was experimentally used in two primary schools which were different in size; the tool used was a handbook on a system. 4) System evaluation: it was a summarization of the results of the system use. Statistics used in data analysis were percentage, mean, standard deviation, and PNI Modified.The research found that the team-based internal supervision system for the primary schools under the Office of the Basic Education Commission was composed of 4 main and 17 sub-components. Input consisted of 6 sub-components, process consisted of 6 sub-components, output and outcome had 3 sub-components, feedback consisted of 2 sub-components. The current conditions of supervision in elementary schools under the Office of Basic Education Commission, had to perform internal supervision at a moderate level. The desirable conditions of the team-based supervision were at most desirable level. There were six sub-systems have been developed. Following the use of the system, it was found that the supervision team gained an increased knowledge and ability in the internal supervision. All of the teachers of the two primary schools in the study acquired a better knowledge on the system. They also were better equipped with an ability to organize the instructional process more effectively than before. They had a better teaching behavior as well.

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)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,535
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
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 Opus0,087
Tête enseignante GPT0,381
Écart entre enseignants0,294 · 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