Fostering a Culture of Collaboration Among Early Childhood Professionals in Higher Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Collaboration among professionals is promoted in various disciplines. This Organizational Improvement Plan addresses a Problem of Practice (PoP) in a Canadian higher education institution. The PoP is the absence of a culture of collaboration among faculty of an Early Childhood Studies program. In the context of this plan, collaboration is defined as a multidimensional, ongoing process that includes interaction, time commitment, the exchange of expertise, and the maintenance of a professional working relationship with stakeholders in order to promote best outcomes. Failure to address this PoP is a disservice to children and their families. Leadership and faculty of the Early Childhood Studies program have an ethical obligation to engage in a culture of collaboration to promote skills, knowledge, and pedagogical practices that will produce graduates of the highest quality. A ripple effect of this change is that graduates will be better prepared to make the greatest possible difference by supporting children and their families to achieve equal outcomes and well-being. Central to this plan are three leadership approaches: transformational, participative, and mindful leadership. Social constructivism is the overarching theory framing this plan and is supported with organizational culture theory. A solution is identified, a union of reflective group practice and communities of practice, and a change path model is used to facilitate the change, with a focus on addressing resistance, communication, knowledge mobilization, and reflection. In addition, a participatory orientation to evaluation and the Plan, Do, Study, Act model are used to frame the monitoring and evaluation of the change.\nKeywords: collaboration, social constructivism, organizational culture, early childhood studies, reflective group practice, CoPs
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 | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| 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".