Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN education has been described as an organized effort to change teachers with the expected result of improving their teaching practice and student learning (Angelo 2001; Guskey 1986). Unfortunately, professional development initiatives have been criticized for their failure to produce significant changes in either teaching practice or student learning. Most recently, this criticism has been extended to education technology initiatives. Some instructors, described in the literature as early adopters and innovators, are quick to incorporate technology into their teaching and are able to use existing support mechanisms to accomplish their goals. Instructor resistance to new educational technologies is most often attributed to the poor implementation of technology initiatives: there is inadequate training, support, and/or planning (Cuban 2001). However, focusing on implementation neglects another important and pervasive barrier to technology adoption. Successful instructors using technology are described as facilitating a learner-centered class management structure and achieving a qualitatively improved depth and scope of student learning (Cuban 2001; Ertmer 1999). This learner-focused view of teaching directly contradicts the traditional model of the teacher as an authority who transmits knowledge by telling students what they must learn (Cuban 2001). Beyond mastering new teaching strategies and new technologies, many teachers are required to adopt new views of teaching and learning to be successful users of educational technologies. To explore this issue, the Health and Community Studies Division at Grant MacEwan College in Alberta, Canada, conducted a study to examine the types of professional development activities that met the needs of our instructors who are involved in online course development. This project was made possible with funding support from the Office of Learning Technologies within Human Resources Development Canada. The research results were used to create a model for bridging course development and professional development. The collaborative model is geared toward the hesitant technology user, and allows for individualized support and continuing education opportunities. This model also proposes a framework for instructors to learn actively while they are developing an online course, and to apply new knowledge and skills to immediate course development tasks. Research Findings Using a case study approach, 10 interviews were conducted to provide in-depth information about the experiences and opinions of instructors involved in online course development. Participants generally acknowledged that information and professional development opportunities were available to them; however, participants often did not make use of the opportunities. Instructors who participated in our study wanted professional development opportunities that: * They could use right away or were related to a current project; * Had built-in follow-up procedures; * Fit into their busy schedules; * Matched their learning styles; * Focused on curriculum; * Included leadership or direction from the program chair; and * Included a support person (technology facilitator) who they could call with questions. Active learning. Adult learners enhance their learning by connecting what they already know to new learning. They are also focused on learning opportunities that directly support their perceived need, and address immediate problems or situations (Brookfield 1991; Knowles 1980). Participants found that effective professional development provided just-in-time learning. This differs from just-in-case learning that is provided in case an instructor may need it in the future (Bates 2000; Gallant 2000). Instructors stated that they quickly forgot how to use education technology unless they were using it in their teaching. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,096 | 0,210 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,011 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,012 | 0,009 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,026 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,014 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,023 | 0,009 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».