MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417416802 · doi:10.5539/jel.v15n3p61

Developing a Family Collaborative Learning Process to Promote Career Planning for Adolescents: An Action Research Approach

2025· article· W4417416802 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Vichavan Tatisattamo, Choosak Ueangchokchai, Walainart Meepan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCareer Development and Diversity
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKasetsart University
KeywordsDirectiveThematic analysisAction researchProcess (computing)Action (physics)Collaborative learningQuality (philosophy)Qualitative research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explored the development of a family collaborative learning process to promote career planning among adolescents in Thailand. Drawing on Kemmis and McTaggart’s (1990) action research framework, seven families—each with an adolescent aged 13–15—participated in a cyclical process of planning, acting, observing, and reflecting (PAOR). Literature was first reviewed to design research tools, which included (1) semi-structured interview guides and (2) field notes for the planning stage. Data was then collected during the acting phase through interviews and observations, while thematic content analysis was conducted during the reflection phase to identify key factors shaping the family learning process. The findings highlight two major categories with five sub-themes influencing family collaborative learning. Internal factors included limited quality family time, communication that was often directive and brief, and parents’ good intentions without practical strategies. External factors reflected adolescents’ reliance on outside sources of information and the presence of generational or aspirational gaps. Building on these insights, the study developed a framework that integrates the 3F principles—Focus Listening, Frame, and Facilitate—with the 4D cycle—Deep Reflect, Develop Together, Design the Map, and Drive and Evolve. Together, these approaches aim to shift parents’ roles from directive advisors toward facilitators of collaborative and reflective learning. To support practical application, five tools were created to help families engage in career-related dialogue and shared decision-making: (1) family dialogue prompts, (2) MBTI-based activity, (3) Child’s Thought Checklist, (4) Family Learning Contract, and (5) a Family Journal template. These tools encourage parents and adolescents to co-create meaningful conversations, strengthen understanding, and align aspirations with realistic planning. Overall, the study contributes to a structured yet flexible process that empowers families to learn together, bridge generational gaps, and guide adolescents toward more informed and collaborative career choices.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.164
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicCareer Development and DiversityFrench-language works237,207