Teacher Learning in a Context of Educational Change: Informal Learning Versus Systematically Supported Learning
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After certification, teachers do not often receive systematic support in their learning and hence mainly depend on informal learning opportunities at work. The present study addresses the question of if and how supervision makes a difference to teacher learning. In a longitudinal mixed-method study, the learning of one teacher is documented in a year in which she had no systematic support but had to adjust herself to an educational innovation. The authors also studied this teacher in a consecutive year in which she did receive individual supervision. During supervision, the teacher became aware of beliefs and patterns that had previously inhibited her from change. This awareness precipitated significant changes in her beliefs and classroom behavior as well as the way she learned. The findings suggest that professional learning will take place only if a teacher is supported in learning how to deal effectively with personal factors involved in the learning process.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 it