A Mixed-Methods Efficacy Study of Teaching Adolescents to Think and Act Responsibly–The EQUIP Approach: A Narrative Filmmaking Pedagogy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ontario’s Ministry of Education requires Character Development to be integrated into regular subject curricula (OME, 2008), yet the initiative is devoid of clearly defined research-based strategies for implementation (Bajovic, Rizzo & Engemann, 2009). The purpose of this mixed-methods (QUAN + qual) study was to examine the effectiveness of an evidence-based multicomponent psycho-educational program: The EQUIP Approach: Teaching Adolescents to Think and Act Responsibly (DiBiase, Gibbs, Potter & Blount, 2012) as it was implemented through the pedagogical tool of Narrative filmmaking in a Technological Education course. A 2 x 2 Repeated Measures MANOVA was conducted in a sample of 102 students, aged 14-18 years (M = 16.12), to address the research questions: 1) Is there a relationship between the three dependent psychometric measures, the How I Think (HIT) questionnaire, the Social Skills Improvement System - Rating Scale (SSIS-RS), and the Socio-moral Reflection Measure–Short Form (SRM-SF); and 2) Do the groups (i.e., the group receiving The EQUIP Approach (DiBiase et al., 2012) through the narrative filmmaking pedagogy (referred to as the EQUIP-NF Group) versus the group receiving the regular method of Character Education (referred to as the Control Group) differ across the HIT, the SSIS, and the SRM-SF from pre to post-test? Qualitative interviews were analyzed to address the supporting qualitative research question: How do the thoughts, feelings, perceptions, and insights of both groups (the EQUIP-NF Group and the Control Group) explain and/or expand on the experimental results? It was found that when delivered through the narrative filmmaking pedagogy, The EQUIP Approach (DiBiase et al., 2012) was an effective psychoeducational intervention, impacting the multi-component constructs of EQUIP (i.e., reducing students’ anger inducing cognitive distortions, developing students’ moral reasoning skills, and improving social skills), while concurrently satisfying Ontario’s mandate to integrate Character Development into regular subject curriculum.
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 | 0.023 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".