Collaborative teacher inquiry as professional development : concepts, contexts and directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores the concepts, contexts and directions of collaborative teacher inquiry as one form of professional development for teachers in British Columbia's K-12 public schools. The study is based on work conducted within the Research Division of the BC Teachers' Federation over a fourteen-year period, and includes consideration of the union's role and potential in supporting teacher inquiry. A diverse range of literature which impacts on teacher inquiry is considered: the literature on Action Research and professional development, networks and collaborations, concepts of 'good' schools; and teacher unions. Four inquiry projects conducted between 1992 and 2002 provided data showing the evolution of union-initiated inquiry involving teams of teacher-researchers and the author of this study, as the facilitator of these groups. Two inquiry projects conducted between 2002 and 2006 also provide sources of data. These projects involved the teachers' union in partnerships with school districts and a university. The study provides empirical evidence which makes a case that collaborative teacher inquiry has demonstrated value to teachers who engage in it as a form of professional development, and that value accrues to the education systems in which those teachers work. Benefits to teachers which are demonstrated in this study include a greater sense of professional efficacy, reduced isolation, and a belief that students benefited from the teachers' inquiry. The study finds that contexts in which inquiry occurs may be of greater significance than is generally accepted in the literature. Context - from school design to levels of organizational support or apathy - needs to be better understood by those undertaking teacher inquiry, and some ways of understanding context and its influence on teachers' practices are illustrated in this study. The move from private to public space by participation in inquiry groups was of major significance for both individuals and organizations, as it allowed for ideas to be challenged and judgment developed. These factors strongly suggest that the inquiry experience is one of professional, not staff, development, with the professionalism and autonomy of the learner respected, and with participants taking control of their own learning needs.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".