Taking the tiger by the tail: Guidelines for professional development on implementing technology in schools
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This project report provides a description of a learning resource teacher’s experiences in developing a staff training project that was more than just a one-shot deal. It describes professional development practices for implementing technology integration at one rural central high school in Newfoundland. Concurrent with the literature review, an action-research project was designed to encourage ownership, input, and collaboration among the staff. The project was designed to assess the needs of the teachers and to give them a voice that could influence their training. -- A focus of this project was to create an awareness of technology and to provide ongoing support to meet teachers’ needs for using and integrating technology into their programs. The structure of this project allowed the researcher to study the stakeholders involved in technology initiatives at this school. By immersing himself into his study as a participant-observer, the research was able to develop survey instruments that measured the staff’s needs and feelings about technology. Information collected through these instruments was used to enhance the design of the teachers’ Technotraining initiatives. – Chapter One gives a brief introduction of the study including the problem, the goals and objectives, and the components of the project; outlines the organization of the report, and explains its writing style. Chapter Two describes the methodological framework used in the project: identifies the action research process, recognizes the literature review that was concurrent with this process, describes the use of the district’s framework for implementation, identifies the research as an active participant-observer, and provides a profile of the intended users of the initiatives. It describes the purpose and design of instruments constructed and used. Chapter Three contains the review of literature related to research regarding professional development, change theory, and technology and its implementation, as it relates to schools. It concludes with relevant guidelines that grow out of the literature. Chapter Four includes a reflective journal detailing the school self-study through the use of the action-research model. It gives a chronological account of the project’s design and implementation through the researcher’s observations and reflections. Chapter Five lists guiding principles that were drawn out of the research and describes lessons learned from their practice. Chapter Six describes the rationale and a copy of the teachers’ materials that were developed for this training process. References to other documents from the literature that could be used to enrich the training process are also provided. Chapter Seven presents the results of the project. This includes recommendations, staff reactions and feedback, and revisions and additions to the project, the possibilities for further work, and its transferability to other schools. It ends with a discussion of professional development planning as a learning experience.
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 | 0,153 | 0,171 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,011 | 0,014 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,009 | 0,012 |
| Communication savante | 0,012 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,013 | 0,012 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,015 | 0,019 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,015 | 0,028 |
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 ».