Working and employment conditions of school support staff: a scoping review protocol
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: For many years, Quebec’s provincial education system has been facing a serious shortage of school support staff. Recent literature indicates that their working and employment conditions have been identified as barriers to attracting and retaining these staff members. These include job insecurity, fragmented schedules, gender stereotypes and limited power, which affect their recognition within the school system. In addition, the main unions representing school support staff indicate that they are exposed to numerous psychosocial risks (workplace violence, organizational injustice) that can affect their physical and mental health. This creates a vicious circle, as the lack of attractiveness and retention in schools leads to work overload, a deterioration in quality of service (service disruptions, failure to comply with supervision ratios), burnout, and a decline in well-being at work, which in turn fuels the school support staff turnover rate. To date, only a few scientific studies have analyzed the working conditions of school support staff. Most studies rather focus on the quality of educational and pedagogical services offered. To fill this gap, a collaborative research project aims to identify collaborative practices, and contextualize them in terms of working and employment conditions, in order to attract and retain school support staff. Objectives: This scoping review pursues two main objectives: 1) to characterize the working and employment conditions of school support staff and identify their determinants; 2) to identify the impacts of these conditions on their practices and work activity. Methods and analysis: Using qualitative methods, a scoping review will be carried out. The search strategy will be applied to more than fourteen databases (Education source, Medline, Academic search complete, Psychology and behavioural sciences collection, SocINDEX, ERIC, APA Psycinfo, APA PsycArticles, Scopus, Érudit, Persée, Cairn and all databases of SCOPUS). The screening will be done with Covidence, including a training test with two independent researchers to ensure reliability and a reconciliation procedure. An extraction grid will be used to extract data from selected documents. Tables and graphs will summarize the characteristics of the selected studies (year of publication, country, research aim and design, job title, type of school setting, etc.). Research gaps will be highlighted by comparing these characteristics. A semi-inductive thematic coding will be performed to analyze the extracted data. Then, a descriptive synthesis will be written, using a narrative approach, to discuss the main objectives of this scoping review. Finally, recommendations for further research will be formulated.
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 | 0,011 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,012 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,010 | 0,009 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,100 | 0,004 |
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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».