Using Focus Group Research to Assess Health Education Needs of Pre-service and In-service Teachers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Few studies have been conducted in Canada to investigate the roles, actions and beliefs of health teachers in school health programs. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to explore health education teaching and assess related needs among pre-service and in-service teachers in a British Columbia K-12 school system, and to elicit conclusions regarding how to improve health through schools. Methods: K-12 teachers from the participating school district (N = 16) and pre-service teachers from the participating university (N = 14) participated in four focus groups. Results: Guided by the ecological model, seven themes were identified and categorized: (1) Intrapersonal Level (teaching strategies; knowledge/skills; comfort); (2) Interpersonal Level (teaching barriers); and (3) Community Level (health curricula; health programs; role of school). Discussion: Seven themes highlight the issues of school health programs from practitioners' perspectives, which also correspond with five sources of problems of school health programs classified by the WHO Expert Committee. This study reinforced the need for initial development of health educator roles and competencies to guide actions in school health improvement. Translation to Health Education Practice: The identified sources of problems illustrate the potential role that a health-promoting school approach plays to build school-community connectedness.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".