Administrators’ professional learning via Twitter: the dissonance between beliefs and actions
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
Purpose Although there has been increasing optimism about the potential for social media platforms such as Twitter to support educators’ professional learning, it is yet unclear whether such promises hold true. Accordingly, the purpose of this study is to explore school administrators’ use of Twitter for professional learning. Design/methodology/approach This qualitative case study draws data collected from 17 school administrators from throughout the United States and Canada. In addition to individual, semi-structured interviews, administrators’ tweets were collected for two weeks. This resulted in 1460 tweets. Analyses were aimed at perceptions about Twitter, the knowledge shared, and its impact on practice. Findings Findings presented a paradox: although administrators were enthusiastic about the social and professional benefits associated with Twitter, they did not share or apply much knowledge commonly associated with administrator work. Topically, administrators’ tweets tended to focus on technology, rather than other leadership issues. Also, administrators’ informal tweets focused on norms and relationships in the online community, rather than other dimensions to leadership craft. What’s more, leaders were rarely able to point to direct changes in their school policies or practices resulting from Twitter. Research limitations/implications The present study raises issues for future research, including: How do administrators evaluate the expertise of peers or other resources online? How do leaders negotiate conflict or dialogue online? How might leaders leverage social media as public relations tools? Practical implications Whereas popular media have described the benefits of platforms like Twitter in broad strokes, the present study provides a detailed account of the practitioner experience. This account includes not only descriptions of what leaders might (or might not) be learning via Twitter, but also some of the benefits of being able to socialize with colleagues online. Originality/value As social media use has grown, so has interest in using such platforms for professional learning. However, there is a gap in knowledge regarding the strengths and shortfalls facing administrators. This study breaks new ground by comparing Twitter's purported benefits to user's tweets and outcomes.
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 | 0,001 |
| 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