The Teach-ABI Professional Development Module for Educators About Pediatric Acquired Brain Injury: Mixed Method Usability Study (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Acquired brain injury (ABI) is a leading cause of death and disability in children and can lead to lasting cognitive, physical, and psychosocial outcomes that affect school performance. Students with an ABI experience challenges returning to school due in part to lack of educator support and ABI awareness. A lack of knowledge and training contribute to educators feeling unprepared to support students with ABI. Teach-ABI, an online professional development module, was created to enhance educators’ ABI knowledge and awareness to best support students. Using a case-based approach, Teach-ABI explains what an ABI is, identifies challenges for students with ABI in the classroom, discusses the importance of an individualized approach to supporting students with ABI, and describes how to support a student with an ABI in the classroom. OBJECTIVE This study aims to assess the usability of and satisfaction with Teach-ABI by elementary school educators. The following questions were explored: (1) Can elementary school teachers use and navigate Teach-ABI?, (2) Are the content and features of Teach-ABI satisfactory?, and (3) What modifications are needed to improve Teach-ABI? METHODS Elementary school educators currently employed or in training to be employed in Ontario elementary schools were recruited. Using Zoom, individual online meetings with a research team member were held, where educators actively reviewed Teach-ABI. Module usability was evaluated through qualitative analysis of think-aloud data and semistructured interviews, direct observation, user success rate during task completion, and the System Usability Scale (SUS) scores. The usability benchmark selected was 70% of participants performing more than half of module tasks independently. RESULTS A total of 8 female educators participated in the study. Educators were classroom (n=7) and preservice (n=1) teachers from public (n=7) and private (n=1) school boards. In terms of task performance, more than 85% of participants (ie, 7/8) independently completed 10 out of 11 tasks and 100% of participants independently completed 7 out of 11 tasks, demonstrating achievement of the module usability goal. The average overall SUS score was 86.25, suggesting a high satisfaction level with the perceived usability of Teach-ABI. Overall, participants found Teach-ABI content valuable, useful, and aligned with the realities of their profession. Participants appreciated the visual design, organization, and varying use of education strategies within Teach-ABI. Opportunities for enhancement included broadening content case examples of students with ABI and enhancing the accessibility of the content. CONCLUSIONS Validated usability measures combined with qualitative methodology revealed educators’ high level of satisfaction with the design, content, and navigation of Teach-ABI. Educators engaged with the module as active participants in knowledge construction, as they reflected, questioned, and connected content to their experiences and knowledge. This study established strong usability and satisfaction with Teach-ABI and demonstrated the importance of usability testing in building online professional development modules.
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 | 0.020 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".