Developing and Evaluating a Child Maltreatment Training Program for Elementary School Teachers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Child abuse and neglect (i.e., maltreatment) affect a considerable number of children and can negatively impact how children learn and behave in the classroom. Knowledge gaps, false beliefs, and limited skills with regard to child maltreatment are commonly found among teachers, despite their vital role in the lives of maltreated children. In Canada, little has been done to develop training or other supports for teachers around detecting and responding to child maltreatment. This two-study dissertation brings awareness to the training needs of Canadian-based teachers regarding child maltreatment, as well as to the feasibility of developing, implementing, and evaluating child maltreatment teacher training. Study 1 involved a multi-informant assessment of (1) teachers’ child maltreatment training needs and (2) factors that may influence teachers’ training participation and use of maltreatment-related knowledge and skills. Using surveys and focus groups, qualitative information was gathered from three informant groups in a major urban region in Ontario (i.e., 19 school social workers, 9 child welfare practitioners, and 21 foster caregivers). Study 1 findings highlighted gaps in maltreatment-related knowledge and skills among local elementary school teachers in various areas related to child maltreatment detection and intervention (e.g., trauma-sensitive classroom practices, reporting). Beyond identifying training content needs, Study 1 results also identified multi-level factors that might influence teachers’ participation in child maltreatment training, as well as their use of maltreatment-related knowledge and skills. Most commonly, factors included teacher workload issues, teacher beliefs (e.g., negative attitudes toward child welfare), school internal supports (e.g., unavailability of social workers), and school resource structures (e.g., unmet demand for assessments). Building on these results, Study 2 designed, piloted, and evaluated a child maltreatment training curriculum for teachers. The training evaluation followed Kirkpatrick’s (1994) model for evaluating training programs, wherein the first three of four levels were addressed: (1) reaction (participants’ perceptions about the training); (2) learning (change in knowledge and/or attitudes); and (3) behaviour (change in actual work practices). A quasi-experimental design was used to gather data from a sample of 45 local teachers (19 intervention and 26 wait-list comparison group participants) with total experience in education ranging from 2 to 39 years. To explore participants’ feedback on the training, quantitative and qualitative information was gathered using surveys administered during the training (n = 19). To explore preliminary training outcomes, quantitative and qualitative information was gathered using pre- and post-training questionnaires (n = 45), as well as post-training interviews (n = 13). Training feedback findings supported the usefulness and relevance of training content for local elementary school teachers. Study 2 results also suggest that relatively brief child maltreatment training has the potential to improve teachers’ attitudes, knowledge, and likelihood of responding effectively to maltreatment-related issues at school. Although replication with additional samples and more rigorous methodology are needed, these findings represent an important first step in establishing improved training for Canadian school professionals regarding child maltreatment. Collectively, dissertation results also have several research and clinical implications. Foremost, this dissertation offers recommendations for future maltreatment training development, implementation, and evaluation efforts that include teachers and other school-based professionals. Dissertation results also highlight a need for complementary efforts to explore and address the intersection of factors and systems that may influence teachers’ participation in maltreatment training and research, as well as their responses to child maltreatment at school.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".