A study of the inclusion of students' perspectives in Ontario school board improvement planning through student trustee representation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Students are the largest stakeholders in education and school board improvement plans have a direct impact on their educational experience. This study examined the inclusion of students’ perspectives in improvement planning as represented by student trustees. Based on an adaptation of Fielding’s (2012) framework for student engagement. The study was guided by the assumption that the nature of student trustee engagement in the improvement planning process related to the ways in which education leaders created the conditions to invite students’ input. Responses to on-line questionnaires completed by a sample of 26 English school board supervisory officers and 28 former student trustees all of whom served in their respective roles prior to September 2014 in English school boards in the province of Ontario provided the primary source of data. Both supervisory officers and former student trustees indicated a high level of agreement about the importance of including students’ perspectives in improvement planning. However, overall, across all phases of the board improvement planning process, both supervisory officers and former student trustees indicated that student trustees were not very involved. The study concluded that both supervisory officers and former student trustees would like to see a more participatory role of student trustees in informing the improvement planning process. To do so would require overcoming the challenges identified by these groups. Articulating an appropriate and meaningful role for student trustees in an improvement planning process will be an important consideration when thinking about modifications to existing practices. Provision should be given for enhanced interaction between student trustees and their fellow peers and between student trustees and school board staff when developing improvement plans. Education leaders are encouraged to use an expanded framework for student trustee representation to include opportunities for student trustees to co-lead and co-learn with their fellow peers and staff. Student trustees are encouraged to advocate locally within school boards and provincially through student trustee organizations to elevate the importance of including students’ perspectives in the improvement planning process from students themselves in order to achieve a more authentic response to improving student achievement and well-being in Ontario’s publically funded school system.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,018 | 0,037 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,014 | 0,008 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».