No One Way: Working Models for Teachers’ Professional Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the role of professional development in the implementation of computer technologies in schools across Canada and elsewhere. Three examples of professional development in Canada are examined, each functioning at a different administrative level (faculty of education, school-district and school-based), and each employing a different strategy or set of tactics for professional development. The programs are described in general terms, elucidating the methods and practices which support and hinder teachers in their technological development. Teachers' and administrators' own stated preferences for what works and what doesn't are examined as they attempt to make more and/or better use of computers in their classes and schools. The data collection methods that were used in this study were documentary research, onsite visits, workshop observations, and semi-structured interviews with teachers, project developers and administrators. A common range of issues encountered when teachers pa rticipate in large- and small-scale professional development programs was identified, and certain key elements that should be considered when designing and implementing professional development programs for teachers are suggested. ********** This study examines an often over-looked aspect of the implementation of computer technologies in schools across Canada and elsewhere: it seeks to identify, describe, and clarify examples of teacher professional development from the standpoint of its participants--namely, teachers and their administrators. As the number of computers accessible to students and teachers in classrooms and labs has increased, especially in the last 10 years, there has been a corresponding emphasis on integrating technology across the curriculum. Teachers' effective use of computers in their classrooms, however, remains an elusive goal. Researchers have identified numerous barriers to teachers' use of computers in their classes, such as limited equipment, inadequate skills, minimal support, time constraints, and the teachers' own lack of interest or knowledge about computers (Bryson & de Castell, 1998; Berg, Benz, Lasley, & Raisch, 1998; Clark, 2000; Ertmer, Addison, Lane, Ross, & Woods, 1998; Hadley & Sheingold, 1993; Laferriere, Breuleux, Baker, & Fitzsimons, 1999; Macmillan, Liu & Timmons, 1997; National Center for Educational Statistics [NCES], 1999; Schrum, 1994, 1997, 1999). Rightly or wrongly, teachers have come under fire as insufficiently skilled to make use of promising new technologies. In the early stage of computer adoption in the classroom we have too often faced the spectacle of enormous resources being dedicated to hardware and software while neglecting the human part of the equation--teacher support and development. Governments, faculties of education, school districts, schools, communities, and individuals have belatedly come to understand the need to give teachers access to training and development in required information technology skills. In British Columbia, for example, in 2001, the Ministry of Education earmarked $1.6 million for professional development in the integration of technology, into classroom instruction for 1,000 teachers of Grades 6-9. While programs for providing professional development have varied widely and have been examined in detail in a number of US based studies (see, more recently, Hoffman & Thompson, 2000; NCES, 1999; Sorg & Russell, 2000; Schrum, 1999; Swain, 2000; Walbert, 2000) and a Canada-wide study (Laferriere, Breuleux, Baker & Fitzsimons, 1999) this work focuses on three examples of professional development in Canada, each functioning at a different administrative level (faculty of education, school-district, and school-based), and each employing a different strategy or set of tactic s for professional development. …
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".