Factors Impacting the Successful Implementation of Comprehensive Guidance and Counseling Programs in Nova Scotia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Responding to the increasing challenges faced by Nova Scotia schools, the provincial Department of Education initiated, 4 years ago, the development of a comprehensive guidance and counseling program to address the guidance and counseling needs of students. A task force, established with representation of interested groups, was committed to the concept of shifting guidance and counseling from a position-based model to a program-based model (Gysbers & Henderson, 2000). The task force, guided by the work of Gysbers and Henderson and by the Alberta Department of Education (1995), designed a framework, including a number of essential characteristics, within which schools could develop programs to meet their particular counseling needs. The Comprehensive Guidance and Counseling Program (CGCP), the name given to the program, was designed and developed with defined outcomes and benefits for students from grades one to 12 in Nova Scotia. The program reflects a strong developmental approach, systematically presenting activities appropriate to student developmental levels and including achievable and measurable outcomes in the area of personal, social, educational, and career domains (Gysbers & Henderson, 2000). The four components of the program include guidance curriculum, professional services, life and career planning, and program management and system support. In addition to articulating preventive and responsive activities throughout all program components, the CGCP also outlines roles for all members of the school community, the establishment of an advisory committee, and the design and administration of a program needs assessment. Implementation of the CGCP requires qualified school counselors to coordinate the program and to deliver components of the program requiring this particular professional expertise. Most comprehensive guidance and counseling programs in existence today are rooted in the Missouri model (Lapan, Gysbers, & Sun, 1997) and are suggested to be the choice of schools in the United States (Whiston & Sexton, 1998). Though some problems were reported with the implementation and delivery of these comprehensive guidance and counseling programs, there was general agreement mat me programs were more effective at accessing more students than were traditional models of school counseling. In an edited work by Gysbers and Henderson (1997), there was consensus among the authors who were involved in the implementation of the comprehensive guidance programs that more students were served, and that the school counselor and the program had a higher profile than before initiating the program. In earlier research, Hughey, Gysbers, and Starr (1993) also examined the impact of the Missouri Comprehensive Guidance Program. Their research yielded positive results for students, teachers, and parents, and they recommended that counselors work constantly to inform the school staff and the community about the guidance program, and work more fully to address the guidance needs of all students. Research on comprehensive programs has generally yielded positive outcome results, including enhanced student learning (Kuhl, 1994), and has been recommended as the preferred model of guidance service delivery to schools (Gysbers, Lapan, & Blair, 1999; Sink & MacDonald, 1998). Lapan et al. (1997) reported that schools with more fully implemented guidance programs had students who were more likely to report that they had earned higher grades, were better prepared for their future, had more career and college information available to them, and their school had a more positive climate. Despite the generally positive perception of comprehensive programs, MacDonald and Sink (1999) found that comprehensive programs lacked clarity as to how the program components were integrated with one another. In recommending a model that would yield positive changes within schools, Gysbers et al. (1999) and Rowley (2000) stressed the importance of collaboration among school counselors, administrators, and counselor educators. …
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 | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".