No One Way: Working Models for Teachers’ Professional Development
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
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.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 découle