An exploration of meaningful involvement in ropes course programs
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Ropes course programs provide numerous benefits but what makes programs effective has been unclear. The purpose of the study was to: 1) determine if there was a measurable difference in meaningful involvement between the Challenge by Choice (CbC) and Inviting Optimum Participation (IOP) approaches to ropes course program design and delivery, and 2) identify and compare the linkages among program attributes, outcomes, and values with each approach. The study involved 360 young adolescents (ages 10 -15) who took part in full-day ropes course programs provided by one of four organizations in Ontario, Canada. Participants included 172 boys and 188 girls. The average age was 12.7 years and 47% had previous ropes course program experience. Participants completed either: 1) an experience sampling survey related to meaningful involvement or 2) a means-end laddering survey related to program attributes, outcomes, and values. The experience sampling data were subjected to multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). The dependent variables were meaningful involvement during high (belayed) activities and low (non-belayed) activities. The independent variables were program type, sex, and ropes course experience. Program type had a significant effect (8(3,158) = 0.937, p< 0.05) for meaningful involvement experienced during high activities. Meaningful involvement consists of the areas engagement, choice, and view of self. Follow-up ANOVAs indicated that choice (F(1, 160) = 6.127, p< 0.05) was significantly higher in IOP programs. Differences between the programs in engagement and view of self were not significant. There was no significant effect for low activities. Means-end analysis was used to identify linkages among program attributes, outcomes, and values. Responses were organized into 11 Hierarchical Value Maps. Participants in IOP programs identified different linkages than participants in CbC programs. IOP program participants were more likely to mention the attribute low activities and the outcome group efficacy as significant and less likely to mention the outcome anxiety. CbC participants were less likely to mention low activities and group efficacy and more likely to mention anxiety and the value excitement. These findings indicate that ropes course program design and delivery can be manipulated to provide specific benefits and facilitate participant experiences of meaningful involvement.
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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
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 ».