MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1613897748 · doi:10.22329/jtl.v8i1.3069

Implementation of a Strengths-Based Approach to Teaching in an Elementary School

2012· article· en· W1613897748 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Keith Brownlee, Edward P. Rawana, Julia MacArtthur

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Teaching and Learning · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicResilience and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionClass (philosophy)Strengths and weaknessesPerspective (graphical)Intervention (counseling)Mathematics educationPsychologyMental healthPedagogySocial psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Schools play a significant role in addressing children’s mental health needs and this article contends that schools can further contribute to student mental well-being by adopting a strengths perspective model. A specific strengths assessment and treatment model is presented that extends to individual, peer and group interventions as well as discussions within the classroom that is applicable to every student in the school and not only students considered ‘at risk’. By engaging an entire class, or indeed an entire school, in a dialogue of strengths, the concept of strengths can become a part of the culture of the school and lead to a positive school environment. This article provides an overview of the model, its implementation in a school, including the theory informing the interventions, followed by two brief case studies showing how the model was applied in a classroom. The intervention not only transforms the way in which educators interact with students, but it changes the way students perceive themselves and the manner in which they perceive their own potential.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.411 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations27
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Teaching and LearningSame topicResilience and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207