Codification and Validation of Professional Development Questionnaire of Teachers
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
<p class="apa">Teacher in the educational system and the teaching-learning process, as a main leading should need to knowledge and professional skills. Therefore, evaluation of professional development is important. This study aims to design and modify Construction and Validation of professional development questionnaire of teachers. This research based on methodology and data collection procedure was descriptive-surveyed. The population consists of 400 teachers from high in Birjand in the academic year 2013-2014. A sample of 246 was estimated by Krejcie and Morgan. The instrument used in this study is a researcher's questionnaire of teachers’ professional development. In order to assess the reliability and validity was used the content and construct validity by using of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis and Cronbach’s alpha. Results show that the questionnaire has good reliability and validity. According to the results of a factor analysis of the eight factors (components) were identified for professional development of teachers that explains a total of 54/69% of total variance. It can be concluded that the questionnaire would be a suitable tool for the professional development of teachers.</p>
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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