The development of expertise in children’s mental health therapists and teachers: changes in perspective and approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There is growing interest in identifying changes in ways of practice associated with the growth of professional expertise. Research on highly experienced or expert teachers and therapists (i.e. occupational, physical and behavioural therapists) can provide insights into how they approach practice, providing guidance for new practitioners.Purpose: The objective was to compare and contrast children’s mental health therapists’ and elementary/secondary schoolteachers’ perceptions of changes in perspectives and approaches related to the development of expertise.Sample: Nine children’s mental health therapists and five teachers/principals took part.Design and methods: Using a nested sampling design, therapists and teachers/principals were selected based on years of experience and peer reputation, and participated in two separate focus groups. Similarities and differences between the practice groups were examined qualitatively, using cross-group analysis.Results: Common reported changes in perspective included the development of open, broad, flexible and relational perspectives. Changes in approach included a focus on children’s needs/desires, psychosocial issues/outcomes and realistic goals.Conclusions: The findings indicated how expert practitioners viewed their practice as changing over time, contributing to a better understanding of the nature and development of expertise in children’s service practitioners. The findings suggest the importance of paying attention to children’s needs/desires, cultivating awareness of their motivation and psychosocial issues, and setting realistic goals. Practitioners linked these changes in perspective and approach to more positive life and learning outcomes for children, which may have implications for guiding the practice of more novice teachers and therapists.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".