Teachers are in a profession with high demands as they work to meet the diverse learning needs of their students. Consequently, many teachers experience high levels of stress contributing to burnout, and unfortunately, many leave the profession. Teacher mental health may contribute to the resilience of teachers who choose to stay in the profession. Positive school climate also has the potential to contribute to teacher mental health and to provide an optimal environment to support student learning and growth. Knowledge of school climate and factors relating to teacher well-being are critical to allow for interventions to best support teachers and students in school settings. Additionally, there is a growing trend toward inclusive education practices that influences teacher well-being, student outcomes, and parent experiences. The aim of this review paper is to provide an overview of existing literature relating to teacher well-being and school climate factors in relation to student learning. Furthermore, this paper will extend findings from existing literature to provide directions for future research and applied educational practices.

No abstract

Innovative practice in a classroom adds challenges and tensions to programs and institutional structures in higher education. With the recent emphasis on curricula reform, there is a great focus on assessment and pedagogical practices to support student learning. To illustrate the tensions arising from these efforts, we present four pedagogical and assessment innovation approaches using both Shulman’s (2005) Signature Pedagogies and Tatar’s (2007) Design Tensions frameworks. The four approaches include problem-based learning, game-based learning, case-based learning, and technology-enhanced learning. A narrative for each approach examines and addresses tensions using Shulman’s (2005) surface, deep and implicit structures. We argue that there is an interconnected complexity and conflicting visions among the micro- (e.g., classroom or practicum), meso- (e.g., program), and macro- (e.g., institution) levels. We acknowledge that dynamic tensions continually exist and needs to be thoughtfully navigated in support of innovative assessment and pedagogies in higher education. Dans l’enseignement supérieur, les pratiques innovatrices en salle de classe ajoutent des défis et des tensions aux programmes et aux structures institutionnelles. Suite à l’importance accrue récemment attachée à la réforme des programmes d’études, l’accent est mis sur l’évaluation et les pratiques pédagogiques pour soutenir l’apprentissage des étudiants. Afin d’illustrer les tensions qui découlent de ces efforts, nous présentons quatre approches de pédagogie et d’évaluation innovatrices qui font appel à la fois aux cadres de Shulman, Signature Pedagogies (2005), et à ceux de Tatar, Design Tensions (2007). Les quatre approches comprennent l’apprentissage par problèmes, l’apprentissage fondé sur le jeu, l’apprentissage basé sur des cas et l’apprentissage amélioré par les technologies. Chaque approche est examinée et traite des tensions qui en découlent en faisant appel aux structures de surface, profondes et implicites de Shulman (2005). Nous soutenons qu’il existe une complexité inter-connectée et des visions conflictuelles aux niveaux micro (par ex. en salle de classe ou durant les stages), meso (par ex. dans les programmes) et macro (par ex. au niveau de l’établissement). Nous reconnaissons que les tensions dynamiques existent de façon continue et doivent être soigneusement examinées pour soutenir l’évaluation et les pédagogies innovatrices dans l’enseignement supérieur.

Despite the breadth and depth of educational neuroscience research and teachers’ interest in neuroscience, teachers often have limited access to reputable sources. As a result, neuromyths–misapplied or over-simplified claims related to brain science–have proliferated. School Psychologists have training in education, applied neuroscience, and evidence-based practices. As such, school psychologists are poised to mitigate the negative impact of teacher neuromyth endorsement. This study examined the endorsement rate of neuromyths by teachers to identify knowledge gaps to inform future training in this area. In-service and preservice teachers from grades K-12 completed an online survey of common neuromyths. Many neuromyths are pernicious and continue to be endorsed by teachers, most commonly related to learning styles and multiple intelligences. These results support the need for increased training in neuroscience for teachers and suggest a desire for factual and useful information about educational neuroscience, which school psychologists can provide in educational contexts.

Psychoeducational assessment involves collecting, organizing, and interpreting a large amount of data from various sources. Drawing upon psychological and medical literature, we review two main approaches to clinical reasoning (deductive and inductive) and how they synergistically guide diagnostic decision-making. In addition, we discuss how the use of both mental shortcuts (i.e., heuristics) and cognitive biases, which we collectively refer to as thinking errors, can lead to errors in judgment when analyzing data. In particular, we highlight where and how common thinking errors may interfere with school psychologists' reasoning throughout the assessment process. Last, we make suggestions on how to reduce errors in judgment and improve clinical reasoning skills by focusing on training, supported clinical practice, and personal strategies.Assessment comprises a significant portion of the work conducted by school psychologists whether they use a cognitive assessment or a Response to Intervention (RtI) model (Bramlett, Murphy, Johnson, Wallingsford, & Hall, 2002). A largely invisible process, clinical reasoning is iterative and involves the systematic testing of hypotheses through the collection, interpretation, and integration of clinical data; however, this process is not without challenges, and school psychologists, like everyone, are prone to errors in their thinking. Consequently, we must be aware of how errors can affect our practice. In our experience and examination of the literature, school psychology training programs do not explicitly teach students clinical reasoning or how to monitor themselves for thinking errors. This potentially leads to poor case conceptualization, which, in turn, leads to weak organization, diagnostic impressions, and recommendations in psychoeducational reports. It is our opinion that developing and intentionally applying clinical reasoning will lead to a more informed understanding of student strengths, needs, and environmental contributions as well as more competent practice.