In-between Places: A Narrative, Arts-informed Exploration of the Knowledge, Values, and Beliefs of English Language Instructors
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This research study, written as a narrative, arts-informed multiple case study, provides a model of reflective practice for TESOL professionals. Based on a foundation of holistic education, this study is an in-depth exploration of the teacher-self, centred on the hearts, minds, and behaviours of four English as an Additional Language (EAL) instructors of adults at mid-career. The central question of this study was, In what ways do English as an Additional Language (EAL) instructors of adult learners describe transformations in their knowledge, values, and beliefs about teaching and learning over the course of time? Engaged in an 8-month long Professional Learning Community (PLC) using Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle as the framework for reflection and growth, participants completed creative and reflective writing tasks and participated in group discussions in order to investigate their knowledge, values, and beliefs and how these shaped their perspectives, impacted their decision-making, and influenced their behaviours both inside and outside the classroom. Through actively investigating and constructing meaning from their lived experiences, participants imagined and created new ways of being and teaching. Participants were interviewed 4 years and 13 years after their participation in the PLC in order to identify the most significant changes in their knowledge, values, and beliefs. Findings showed that peer-based, continued professional development (CPD) involving writing and dialogic reflection are powerful methods and means for mid- to late- career EAL instructors to uncover hidden assumptions, develop alternate perspectives on experiences, build upon their diverse knowledge, and develop and share their expertise. Findings also showed an impact on the participants’ knowledge, values, and beliefs as they each progressed through various life stages and career transitions. While certain values remained the same over time, others changed as a result of the participants’ personal and professional growth. Implications of this study address research and practice at three levels. First, at the individual level, focusing on educators and students, second, at the level of professional development practices, and third, at the policy level related to professional learning and development within the community college context.
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 | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 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 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 ».