The Investigation of Teachers’ Metaphoric Perceptions about Professional Development
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
Professional development is an ongoing process in which teachers review their teaching practices and learn how to respond to their students’ needs. To make the professional development process more effective, we need to define the identity of a teacher correctly and clarify the perspective about teachers’ professional development. The purpose of this study is to investigate teachers’ metaphoric perceptions about professional development. The study was carried out through qualitative research design. The data was collected via an electronic form. The participants were 526 teachers that the researcher contacted through e-mail or social media sites. The data was analyzed through content analysis. The findings of the study indicated that the participants often associated the concept of professional development with an object. In addition, they regarded professional development as a growing and developing entity as well as a demanding occupation that involved change. In this respect, it is important that the teachers are provided with the required resources, budget and time to continue their professional development. Moreover, it is crucial that professional development activities are not limited to seminars and teachers are given the initiative to conduct research about their teaching 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 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