MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1517905966 · doi:10.1177/160940690400300103

Action Research in the Classroom: A Process that Feeds the Spirit of the Adolescent

2004· article· en· W1517905966 on OpenAlexaff
Hilary Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Qualitative Methods · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumCreativityWitnessPedagogyPsychologyCompetence (human resources)Action researchIntrapersonal communicationHolistic educationConversationSociologyMathematics educationSocial psychologyInterpersonal communicationPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Through action research the question “What nourishes the spirit of the adolescent in the classroom” was subjected to an inventive strategy. The inquiry centered around student-driven questions inserted into a holistic intrapersonal curriculum. Recognition of the penury of literature in adolescent self and spirituality led the researcher to formulate the question, to organize and implement sessions with engaged students in a fluid way, to create an appropriate environment, to collect the data, and to analyze the data along thematic lines. Ultimately, the concept that interconnected components such as competence, encouragement, confidence, and self-esteem allow holistic teaching to flourish when creativity, choice, imagination, and constructivism nourish the adolescent spirit in the classroom. A theory clearly rises from the research. Teaching from a holistic perspective, a teacher can offset the solely outcome-based curriculum directives. The teacher and the adolescents committed to learning can continue to regard outcomes while focusing our commitment to process. To nourish the spirit is key. It is an ongoing process of infinite proportions capable of unleashing the energies of all stakeholders in education: teachers, students, parents, officials. The process, if pursued in a determined and mindful way, will witness the establishment of a civil society, one that endures in a renewable way at all levels: home, school, and community.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.191
Threshold uncertainty score0.836

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.735
GPT teacher head0.691
Teacher spread0.045 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Qualitative MethodsSame topicCounseling, Therapy, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207