Listening to the Experts: A Needs Assessment of ASSIST for Disruptive Classroom Behaviour an eLearning Professional Development Program for Classroom Teachers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teachers have limited access to training in in-class interventions for disruptive classroom behaviour (DCB). The goal of the current study was to understand the needs of end-users and stakeholders for teacher-implemented in-class interventions for DCB and their perspectives on eLearning about behaviour management. The needs assessment involved a mixed methods design using a structured interview and an online survey. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize survey responses, with open-ended data used for contextualization. The results revealed: (a) end-users and stakeholders were aware of and reported using many of the interventions that have been assessed in the literature, (b) more frequently used interventions were perceived as more effective, (c) interventions were inconsistently implemented and inconsistently effective, and (d) the implementation of interventions was influenced by student-teacher relationships. Results also indicated that while the participants perceived many positives of using eLearning, there were also some perceived barriers.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".