Postsecondary Faculty Perceptions of Social and Emotional Learning Professional Development on Instructional Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mental health distress for students is prevalent on postsecondary campuses, which negatively affects students’ psychological well-being and academic success. The purpose of this basic qualitative study was to examine the influence that social and emotional learning (SEL) professional development focused on respect had on the instructional practice of full-time faculty at a community college in Western Canada. Mezirow’s theory of transformative learning was the conceptual framework that grounded this study. The research question explored faculty perceptions of the influence of Respect-focused training on their instructional practice. This study used purposeful sampling of 12 full-time faculty members who had taken the Respect training in a previous semester. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews. Data analysis occurred by organizing, preparing, reviewing, and coding the data to generate a description of themes. Participants perceived the training as necessary and valuable for faculty to receive. Findings of this study indicated transformative learning did not occur, as faculty could not articulate how the training translated into behavior change or integration into their instructional practice. Participants indicated that the training did not include the following important components of the transformative learning framework: the ability to communicate and share with others, follow-up training, and a supportive learning community. These components are needed for transformative learning to occur. Faculty and administrators may use this study’s findings to promote positive social change by implementing select SEL interventions to increase the possibility of transformative learning and positive behavior change at the postsecondary education institutional level.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".