Teacher Collaboration in a Geographically Remote School Jurisdiction.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This study examined how teachers in a geographically remote location experienced participation in a collaborative, professional development group project designed to develop student performance assessment tools. Participating teachers completed focus group and individual interviews as well as personal teaching efficacy surveys. All teachers new to the jurisdiction also completed the survey so comparisons could be drawn between participants and nonparticipants. Participants felt that being away from the normal routines of teaching and supervision allowed them to reflect on their practice, discuss strategies, and really talk to colleagues. The experience made them feel professional and valued as people. Teachers reported increased curricular knowledge and changes in expectations for students as a result of working with the project. They noted that their school administrators facilitated participation in the project. Teachers mentioned shared philosophy as an important factor in the project. Challenges to collaboration included lack of time, divergent staff interests, and school culture. Interview data showed increased contact among project members over the course of the year. Efficacy beliefs were strengthened and enhanced by participation in the project. Many participants conducted inservice presentations on the subject to other teachers in the jurisdiction. (Contains 38 references.) (SM) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. Teacher Collaboration in a Geographically Remote School Jurisdiction Lucinda Jenkins University of Alberta 7-104 Education North Edmonton, AB, T6G 2G5 cinjen@telusplanet.net Jose da Costa University of Alberta 7-104 Education North Edmonton, AB, T6G 2G5 jose.da.costa@ualberta.ca Paper prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association in Seattle WA., April 10-14, 2001 1 PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it. Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy.
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 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 | 0,002 |
| 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) | 0,001 | 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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, 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 ».