Investigating teachers’ exploration of a professional development website: An innovative approach to understanding the factors that motivate teachers to use Internet-based resources / Investigation de l’exploration par les enseignants d’un site Web
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study examined an innovative methodology, combining screen capture technology and a retrospective think aloud, for exploring the use of Internet-based resources by elementary teachers. Pre-service and in-service teachers explored The Balanced Literacy Diet, a free, interactive, and evidenced-informed professional development website. As participants navigated through this complex site, each visual step was captured using Camtasia Studio, a screen recording computer software program developed by TechSmith. Immediately following their 10-minute exploration, participants revisited their online choices virtually and verbalized their thoughts while viewing their screen recording. Qualitative analysis confirmed the usefulness of the methodology and provided insights about the factors that motivate teachers to use professional development websites. Results of the analysis can contribute to the ongoing development of high quality online learning environments. Cette étude qualitative s’est penchée sur une méthodologie innovatrice combinant les technologies de saisie d’écran et la pensée rétrospective à voix haute pour l’exploration de l’utilisation des ressources dans Internet par les enseignants de l’élémentaire. Des enseignants en formation initiale et des enseignants sur place ont exploré The Balanced Literacy Diet, un site Web de perfectionnement professionnel gratuit, interactif et s’appuyant sur des données probantes. Tandis que les participants naviguaient dans ce site complexe, chaque étape visuelle était captée à l’aide de Camtasia Studio, un logiciel d’enregistrement de l’écran développé par TechSmith. Immédiatement après leur exploration de 10 minutes, les participants ont revisité virtuellement leurs choix en ligne et ont verbalisé leurs réflexions en regardant l’enregistrement de l’écran. L’analyse qualitative a confirmé l’utilité de la méthodologie et a fourni des perspectives sur les facteurs qui motivent les enseignants à utiliser les sites Web de perfectionnement professionnel. Les résultats de l’analyse peuvent contribuer au développement continu d’environnements d’apprentissage en ligne de grande qualité.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".