Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Five leading researchers of family-school-community partnerships convened a session at the annual convention of the American Educational Research Association in Montreal last month (April, 2005) to throw a lifeline to scholars and practitioners in this field. The age of gold-standard research is upon us, and coin of that specie is rare in family-school-community partnerships. In fact, as the paucity of entries on the Department of Education's Works Clearinghouse website indicates, rigorous evaluation of programs, curricula, and methodologies is scarce throughout the realm of education. For the field of school-home relationships, inadequate evidence of the effects of replicable interventions is a catastrophic deficiency; resources for personnel, programs, and evaluation will be drained away. If the research base for effective teaching practices in mathematics is weak, resources for program design and evaluation will be channeled in that direction. But is not seen as a core purpose of schooling. Rather than applying the new standards of evidence to more focused program design and greater commitment of resources, parental involvement is likely to be cast aside. The point is not to pit curriculum and instruction against parent involvement, but to realize the importance of both and the special vulnerability of the latter. So the stakes are high in Heather Weiss, Joyce Epstein, Kathleen Hoover-Dempsey, Anne Henderson, and William Jeynes proposed in Montreal. Their proposal to reinvigorate the study and practice of school-home relations by giving it greater research standing centers on four sets of questions: 1. Can we change parenting behaviors? If so, which ones should we change? 2. How do we understand the transformation of schools to make parental involvement integral? 3. How can teachers and schools be supported in encouraging parental involvement? What is needed in pre-service preparation of teachers? In-service professional development? 4. How do we educate in we know to improve families, schools, and communities? Without answering the first question, we have no power to move on to the other three. The question itself is refreshingly blunt. It strikes at the heart of frustrations, and by our I mean both educators and family advocates. When educators huddle amongst themselves, disappointed, disgruntled, and besieged, they vent their frustration on the deficiencies and intractability of As one superintendent put it, There simply is no consumer demand for parental involvement. Parents are not lined up at door asking for help. Our efforts are exhausted simply trying to get their attention, hoping they will show up. The ones most in need of help never do. On the flip side, when family advocates assemble, they speak of breaking down barriers, meaning the very schoolhouse doors at which the educators find no queues of parents seeking partnership. This Gordian knot will be broken when we can answer with certainty the question about changing parenting behaviors in ways that will enhance children's learning. The other three questions are moot until the first is answered. They are the how to, procedural corollaries to the central question of knowing what is worth doing. The fourth question, educating community-organizing parents, is asked with exasperation at attempts to change school systems and mentalities. Educating community-organizing parents holds great promise and considerable dangers. Parents would be reached directly and helped to both change parenting practices that will benefit their children and engage their schools in ways that will improve the schools and make them more attuned to productive partnerships. That is good. The danger lies in a misinterpretation of educating community-organizing parents. Well-intentioned organizations can end up causing more harm than good if their purposes are not clearly outlined. …
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,042 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,059 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,010 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,030 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».