MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1569558833

No One Way: Working Models for Teachers’ Professional Development

2002· article· en· W1569558833 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Jennifer Jenson, Brian Lewis, Richard Smith

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Journal of Technology and Teacher Education · 2002
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueEducation and Technology Integration
Établissements canadiensSimon Fraser UniversityYork University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésProfessional developmentCurriculumFaculty developmentMathematics educationSet (abstract data type)PedagogyTechnology integrationScale (ratio)PsychologySociologyEducational technologyComputer science
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

This study investigates the role of professional development in the implementation of computer technologies in schools across Canada and elsewhere. Three examples of professional development in Canada are examined, each functioning at a different administrative level (faculty of education, school-district and school-based), and each employing a different strategy or set of tactics for professional development. The programs are described in general terms, elucidating the methods and practices which support and hinder teachers in their technological development. Teachers' and administrators' own stated preferences for what works and what doesn't are examined as they attempt to make more and/or better use of computers in their classes and schools. The data collection methods that were used in this study were documentary research, onsite visits, workshop observations, and semi-structured interviews with teachers, project developers and administrators. A common range of issues encountered when teachers pa rticipate in large- and small-scale professional development programs was identified, and certain key elements that should be considered when designing and implementing professional development programs for teachers are suggested. ********** This study examines an often over-looked aspect of the implementation of computer technologies in schools across Canada and elsewhere: it seeks to identify, describe, and clarify examples of teacher professional development from the standpoint of its participants--namely, teachers and their administrators. As the number of computers accessible to students and teachers in classrooms and labs has increased, especially in the last 10 years, there has been a corresponding emphasis on integrating technology across the curriculum. Teachers' effective use of computers in their classrooms, however, remains an elusive goal. Researchers have identified numerous barriers to teachers' use of computers in their classes, such as limited equipment, inadequate skills, minimal support, time constraints, and the teachers' own lack of interest or knowledge about computers (Bryson & de Castell, 1998; Berg, Benz, Lasley, & Raisch, 1998; Clark, 2000; Ertmer, Addison, Lane, Ross, & Woods, 1998; Hadley & Sheingold, 1993; Laferriere, Breuleux, Baker, & Fitzsimons, 1999; Macmillan, Liu & Timmons, 1997; National Center for Educational Statistics [NCES], 1999; Schrum, 1994, 1997, 1999). Rightly or wrongly, teachers have come under fire as insufficiently skilled to make use of promising new technologies. In the early stage of computer adoption in the classroom we have too often faced the spectacle of enormous resources being dedicated to hardware and software while neglecting the human part of the equation--teacher support and development. Governments, faculties of education, school districts, schools, communities, and individuals have belatedly come to understand the need to give teachers access to training and development in required information technology skills. In British Columbia, for example, in 2001, the Ministry of Education earmarked $1.6 million for professional development in the integration of technology, into classroom instruction for 1,000 teachers of Grades 6-9. While programs for providing professional development have varied widely and have been examined in detail in a number of US based studies (see, more recently, Hoffman & Thompson, 2000; NCES, 1999; Sorg & Russell, 2000; Schrum, 1999; Swain, 2000; Walbert, 2000) and a Canada-wide study (Laferriere, Breuleux, Baker & Fitzsimons, 1999) this work focuses on three examples of professional development in Canada, each functioning at a different administrative level (faculty of education, school-district, and school-based), and each employing a different strategy or set of tactic s for professional development. …

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,023
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,083
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,184

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0230,028
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0040,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0190,035
Communication savante0,0220,015
Science ouverte0,0040,016
Intégrité de la recherche0,0040,005
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0070,002

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,062
Tête enseignante GPT0,338
Écart entre enseignants0,276 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations26
Publié2002
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Journal of Technology and Teacher EducationMême sujetEducation and Technology IntegrationTravaux en français237 207