Teachers’ Experiences and Perspectives of Implementing and Use of the Classroom Communication Resource (CCR) Intervention: Post Trial Reflections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Post-trial interviews were conducted with teachers who administered the Classroom Communication Resource (CCR) intervention to grade 7 learners in a cluster Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT). The intervention addressed teasing and bullying using stuttering and communication as a case example. In alignment with the RCT, the study findings are presented relative to 1. Population, Intervention, Control, Outcome and Timeframe (PICOT); Aim: To describe the teachers’ experiences and reflections of implementing the CCR intervention and the future use of the intervention.Objectives: To describe the teachers’ 1. Suitability of the population at which the CCR was targeted; 2. intervention views including components of the CCR intervention (social story, role-play and discussion), resulting discussion and topics as well as modifications and recommendations; 3. control group researcher observations to contrast findings; 4. outcomes in terms of discussions, behaviour change and teacher observations; 5. time-frame suitability of the CCR. Setting: The Western Cape Metropolitan Urban Area in South Africa. Design: A qualitative exploratory study design was conducted. Teachers, in the intervention groups only, that is those who administered the CCR were interviewed using semi-structured interviews.Participants: Eligible participants included grade 7 teachers from the lower and higher quintile schools who administered the CCR intervention to the grade 7 learners as part of the randomised controlled trial (RCT) study. The participants were not compensated financially for their time. Sample size: A total of six teachers who administered the CCR intervention were interviewed. Analysis: The interviews were transcribed verbatim and a thematic analysis was conducted. The data analysis procedure included: familiarisation with the data and generation of initial codes and categories which were clustered into themes.Results:. Overall, teachers found the CCR suitable for grade 7s (population) as a communication and teasing and bullying centered intervention that could be implemented in future with adaptations as a curriculum-imbedded intervention tool. It was recommended that in terms of timeframe, the CCR be implemented using ongoing and continuous activities within classroom lessons so solidify and consolidate key messages of the intervention. Discussion: This paper showed that extending the RCT was an invaluable and important step in contributing to the main trial findings. The additional layer of findings to the RCT showed that teacher collaboration is important in knowledge production. The paper also showed the need for a shift and the effects thereof on both methodology and paradigms (and vice versa) for knowledge production, clinically and for research. Trial registration: Trails.gov (NCT03111524). Registered on 9 March 2017 prospectively.
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 | 0.043 | 0.137 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".