Mentors’ Perceptions of Factors Associated with Change in Early Childhood Classrooms
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
Mentors’ perceptions of factors associated with educational change were identified following an individualized mentoring program about constructivist curriculum for early childhood educators. A qualitative case study analysis of the mentors’ journals of six classrooms was conducted to review their perceptions of change. Classroom environment quality was assessed with the Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scale-Revised (ECERS-R) before and after the intervention program. At post-intervention, mentors reported that classrooms with increased ECERS-R Activities scores were likely to engage in behaviors promoting change, for example reflective skills, documenting children’s learning, and challenging their own beliefs. In contrast, educators in classrooms with relatively stable post-intervention ECERS-R Activities scores appeared to create barriers that inhibited change. For example, they were less willing to challenge their beliefs, make changes in practice, and to document children’s learning. Recommendations presented in the paper focus on successful implementation of mentoring programs; policy implications indicate that individualized mentoring programs require proper financial and personnel supports. Suite à un programme de mentorat individualisé portant sur un curriculum constructiviste pour les éducateurs de la petite enfance, nous avons recueilli les perceptions des mentors quant aux facteurs associés aux changements éducatifs. Nous avons entrepris une analyse qualitative de cas basée sur les journaux des mentors qui évoquaient six salles de classe et ce, afin d’étudier la perception qu’ils avaient du changement. La qualité du milieu scolaire a été évaluée avec l'Échelle d'évaluation de l'environnement préscolaire révisée (ÉÉEP-R) avant et après le programme d’intervention. Après l’intervention, les mentors ont signalé que les salles de classe ayant augmenté leur score selon l’échelle ÉÉEP-R étaient plus aptes à adopter des activités promouvant le changement, par exemple, celles impliquant les habiletés de réflexion, la documentation des apprentissages par les enfants et la remise en question des croyances. Toutefois, les enseignants des salles de classe dont le score selon l’échelle ÉÉEP-R après l’intervention était demeuré relativement stable semblaient créer des obstacles qui freinaient les changements. Par exemple, ils étaient moins disposés à remettre en question leurs croyances, d’apporter des modifications à leur pratique et de documenter l’apprentissage des élèves. Les recommandations proposées portent sur la mise en œuvre réussie de programmes de mentorat; parmi les implications stratégiques, notons la nécessité d’un appui financier adéquat et d’un soutien approprié de la part du personnel.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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