Developing a Family Collaborative Learning Process to Promote Career Planning for Adolescents: An Action Research Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.022 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".