Teacher Professional Development: A Sociological Study of Senior Educators' PD Priorities in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated senior educators’ viewpoints on teacher professional development (PD). To examine the nature and source of participants’ perspectives, the study employed Bourdieu’s notion of practice as socially constituted and contested. Interviews were conducted in southern Ontario with 24 senior Ministry officials, principals, and academics. Participants’ current and prior experiences predisposed them to support profession‐driven PD, as well as PD for systemic‐ accountability purposes. The study suggests PD policy directives for provincial foci should (a) incorporate approaches that begin with teachers’ existing knowledge and understanding, (b) address specific school circumstances, and (c) be cognizant of broader conceptions of students’ needs. Keywords: educational practice, educational reform, Bourdieu, Ontario education Cette étude porte sur les points de vue de représentants chevronnés du monde de l’éducation sur le perfectionnement professionnel (PP). Afin d’examiner la nature et l’origine des opinions des participants, l’auteur a eu recours à la notion de pratique de Bourdieu, à savoir la pratique struc‐ turée par la société et contestée par la société. Vingt‐quatre hauts fonctionnaires, directeurs et directrices d’école et universitaires du sud de l’Ontario ont été interviewés. Les expériences actuelles et antérieures des participants les prédisposaient à appuyer le PP en soi et pour des raisons systémiques (dont l’imputabilité). L’étude semble indiquer que les orientations des poli‐ tiques provinciales en matière de perfectionnement professionnel devraient : (a) incorporer des approches qui prennent pour point de départ les connaissances et la compréhension actuelles des enseignants, (b) tenir compte du contexte particulier des écoles et (c) prendre en considération des conceptions élargies des besoins des élèves. Mots clés : perfectionnement professionnel des enseignants, pratique pédagogique, réforme de l’enseignement, Bourdieu, éducation en Ontario.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".