Transformational Learning and Teacher Collaborative Communities
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
An abundance of literature on transformational learning and teacher professional learning communities (PLCs) exists; yet, few, in any, have linked the presence of one within the other. We believe Mezirow’s Transformational Learning Theory should be acknowledged as a viable theoretical framework for better understanding the power of how teachers work together. Evidence of its presence can be identified within the current school practices of PLCs and other collaborative activities. In this paper, we will first overview Mezirow’s theories of transformational learning and then attempt to show how the work of professional learning communities specifically and teacher collaboration generally provide a platform for transforming teachers’ understandings of pedagogy and their roles as teachers. After outlining the concept of transformational learning, we provide two specific research examples to support the existence and relational significance of Mezirow’s Transformational Learning Theory as it relates to advancing teacher practice through collaboration. We trust that our paper adds to a better understanding of why teachers believe collaboration with their peers represents their best professional learning.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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