EXPLORING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF FAMILY STUDIES: LISTENING TO THE EXPERIENCES OF SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Family Studies is a valuable subject because of its ability to connect to students’ lives both in and out of the classroom. I enjoy, value and promote Family Studies education and often wonder why students choose Family Studies as one of their electives. I regularly speculate about the significance of Family Studies for my students and its importance in their daily lives especially since students are rarely consulted in the research. To determine the meaning of Family Studies from a student’s perspective I interviewed nine secondary students from two different rural Southwestern Ontario secondary schools. These students were enthusiastic, interested in Family Studies and provided me with a glimpse of what it was like to be a secondary school Family Studies student in 2005. In this research I used phenomenology as a methodology to guide my work since it endeavours to gain a deeper understanding of the nature or meaning of everyday experiences as they are lived. Thus my conversations with the students attempted to obtain rich descriptions about their experience in order to discover the significance of Family Studies for them. Hermeneutics, with its focus on creating meaning, was the theory I used to guide my interpretation of the text. All nine students interviewed chose to enroll in their first Family Studies course because of an interest in the course material. For some the interest may have been sparked by parents, older siblings, friends or the promise of eating in class. Students continued to take Family Studies because it was fun, interesting, enjoyable, helpful and applicable to their life. Two main themes emerged during the research: This is applicable to my life now and in the future and I feel comfortable in this class. Students spoke of iii how their health, personal relationships, career plans and future life plans were positively influenced by Family Studies. Family Studies provided these students with a safe and nurturing atmosphere where they could relax and enjoy learning that pertained to their life now and in the future. Initially I questioned why students are rarely consulted and suggest that my research is unique and necessary to fill a void in Home Economics/Family Studies research. This study allows secondary school students to have their voices heard and reminds teachers and school administration of the importance of creating a caring and supportive learning environment. By nurturing the student-teacher relationship we can contribute to our students’ development. The comments of the students also reveal the need to continue to examine our thinking about knowledge and its many forms
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".