Action Research and Professional Development of Faculty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study describes the challenges of designing and implementing a multi-site faculty professional development workshop on assessment, measurement, and evaluation of achievement in adult learners. The setting for the workshop was a system of post-secondary career training schools throughout the United States. As internal practitioners seeking to bring about change, the authors applied an action research methodology of planning, acting, observing, and reflecting to develop the program. Prior to the -workshop, a needs assessment involving faculty, students, and administrators was used to determine the framework and instructional objectives for the program. The reflective, systematic program development process involving stakeholders, coupled with the resulting faculty development experience, promoted a learning culture within the organization. Résumé La présente étude fait état des défis posés par la conception et la mise en oeuvre d'un atelier multi-site de développement professionnel destiné au corps enseignant et portant sur l'évaluation de l'apprentissage des étudiants adultes. L'atelier s'est donné dans un réseau d'établissements post-secondaires à vocation professionnelle situés aux quatre coins des Etats-Unis. En tant qu'éducateurs désireux d'améliorer leur pratique, les auteurs ont cherché à développer ce programme par l'application d'une méthodologie de recherche-action caractérisée par la planification, l'action, l'observation et la réflexion. Dans la phase préparatoire, on a precédé à une évaluation de besoms auprès des enseignants, des étudiants et des administrateurs dans le but de préciser le cadre et les objectifs pédagogiques du programme. Fondé sur la réflexion et la participation des intervenants directs, ce programme de développement systematique—soutenu par l'expérience même que les enseignants y ont acquise—a eu pour effet de promouvoir une culture de l'apprentissage au sein du réseau des établissements participants.
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 | 0.131 | 0.122 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".