Chinese and Canadian Teachers’ Perspectives on Educational Policy Changes Technical Report of Results from the Survey of Canadian and Chinese Teachers’ Attitudes towards Policy Changes in their School Education Systems
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This survey of Canadian and Chinese teachers perceptions of educational change is a component of the Canadian Social Science and Humanties Research Council-supported Reciprocal Learning Partnership Project (RLPP). The RLPP was built around a set of sister-schools in several Chinese cities and in Toronto and Windsor, Ontario as well a teacher-education project involving schools in Windsor and Chongqing. The goal was to secure an understanding of the differences and similarities in the attitudes of the sister-schools' respondents towards recent policy changes, and in particular internationalization, in their jurisdictions. \n\tA convenience sample of 407 teachers (Canada, N=149; China, N=258) from schools in Beijing (2 schools), Shanghai (2), Chongqing (5), Changchun (1), Anshan (1), and Windsor, Ontario (7) responded to the survey. The survey itself was built around a set of Likert scales probing the buzz-words associated with contemporary education policy-making. \nWe found that, overall, there was considerable similarity of the responses of the two populations—with the modal response being between “Neutral” and “Agree.” However, within the limitations of this narrow band of responses we see two kinds of pattern in the findings. On the one hand, the Chinese teachers were, overall, more positive and less discriminating in their support for what their systems were doing than were their Canadian counterparts. On the other hand, when we compared each set of respondents’ priorities with their perceptions of the impact of their systems’ policy-making in the areas reflected in the questionnaire’s sets of buzzwords, the differences were striking. The Canadian respondents reported greater congruity between their priorities for the school and classroom and for sectorial and system policy-making and their perception of the impact of their system’s policy-making on these areas than did the Chinese respondents. \nWe also asked the respondents to indicate their priorities for new policies and the areas of impact of their systems’ policy-making. Predictably both sets of respondents prioritized the buzzwords or slogans in the questions that referred to the transactional aspects of teachers’ work; Student engagement and Curriculum content and objectives along with Educational equity were the highest ranked buzzword.
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 | 0,004 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,009 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 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 ».