The Research and Development in Organisations Approach and the Evaluation of a Mainstream Behaviour Support Initiative
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper describes the evaluation of a local authority behaviour support initiative that involved the re-location of four behaviour support teachers from pupil referral units into three mainstream secondary schools to work with pupils at risk of exclusion. The evaluation was largely illuminative (Parlett, 1981) and focused on the effect of changing off-site behaviour support to in-school support. The research approach taken incorporated a Co-operative Inquiry strand (Heron, 1996) where researchers and behaviour support teachers worked together to design major aspects of the research process. This enabled research outcomes to inform educational practice, and gave a reflective, formative aspect to the study. The overall approach to the design of the study was informed by the Research and Development in Organisations (RADIO) model developed by Knight and Timmins (1995). The application of this approach in the context of the study is described along with a brief account of the findings. Finally, brief comment is made on the way in which the RADIO approach might contribute to educational psychologists' work at the local education authority and whole school levels.
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.
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 | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it