Teacher Professionalism: Analysis of Professionalism Phases
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
Teacher professionalism has become a distinctive concern in educational discussions. Based on Teacher and Lecturer Act No.14 2005 carried out by Indonesian Government, teacher professionalism, considered as an assessment aspect of teacher quality, could be drawn by four competences, pedagogical competence, personal, competence, social competence, and professional competence. Hargreaves (2000) captured and fragmented the pattern of professionalism development through four phases. This study, a perception study, observed 100 teachers to draw the pattern of teacher professionalism, particularly in Tulungagung and Blitar District, East-Java, Indonesia based on Hargreaves professionalism phases. The results of this study identify that the likelihood phase of teacher professionalism in Indonesia is in collegial phase. Additionally, the criteria of professionalism enhancement reflect the professionalism development based on professionalism ages by Hargreaves (2000). Further, we observe the likelihood of professionalization become an influential factor of professionalism development. The results indicate that every phase captured the right pattern of professionalism development.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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