How an experienced teacher planned and integrated practices for the development of social and emotional competence in her kindergarten classroom : a case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social-emotional competence is a significant aspect of early learning, and school teachers are expected to address the social and emotional needs of children. There are several concepts related to social and emotional competence that have influenced the way in which teachers implement practices for addressing the social and emotional needs of children. A common way that teachers exploit opportunities to address social and emotional competence is by using already developed primary intervention programmes. A series of phenomena are seen to compromise the efficacy of these programs, such as lack of fidelity and buy-in, and little is known about how kindergarten teachers integrate practices for the development of social and emotional competence into their daily practice. This Case Study used Thematic Content analysis of class plans, observations and interviews with one teacher to explore how an experienced kindergarten teacher plans opportunities and integrates practices for the development of social and emotional competence in her classroom. How this teacher articulates the process of planning and implementing opportunities for the development of social and emotional competence was also explored. This study took place in a public school in the lower mainland of British Columbia, Canada, where the school curriculum had focused on the issue of social and emotional competence for many years. The teacher used different planned and spontaneous strategies to support children's development of social and emotional competence. The most used strategies involved books and humour. Her experience helped her develop the expertise to integrate teaching practices that are effective in creating a positive environment for learning. However, teachers may benefit from getting more support to ease their job. As it was a case study, other contexts may reveal different findings. Future research may focus on studying how a teacher might use humour and internet search to support children's development of social and emotional competence.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".