MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1581258015 · doi:10.26522/brocked.v19i2.135

The Impact of Professional Development on Beginning Teachers’ Practices in One Secondary School

2010· article· en· W1581258015 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
M Hinds, Marie-Josée Berger

Bibliographic record

VenueBrock Education Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTeacher Education and Leadership Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProfessional developmentCurriculumFaculty developmentLiteracyPedagogyPsychologySchool teachersCognitively Guided InstructionMedical educationProfessional learning communityMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A case study was conducted in 2004-2005 on the professional development experiences of beginning teachers (1-5 years of experience) in an Ontario, Canada secondary school (Grades 7-12) and the impact of those experiences in improving their practices. For comparative purposes, the study included the perspectives of administrators from the same school on the impact of professional development on these teachers. The findings revealed that the literacy training program was successfully implemented at the school and positively affected beginning teachers’ knowledge, instructional strategies, and planning practices. Other findings indicated that beginning teachers needed subject content and instructional strategies, ongoing mentoring, and skills in both classroom management and mapping the curriculum. Based on the findings of the study, a new framework for professional development is suggested. A number of recommendations propose ways of connecting research, policy and practice that could ultimately improve the effectiveness of professional development programs for beginning teachers. Key words: teacher professional development, beginning teacher, adult learning, self-efficacy, collective efficacy, supervision, organizational policies and culture

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.128
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.331 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrock Education JournalSame topicTeacher Education and Leadership StudiesFrench-language works237,207