MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2727351154 · doi:10.1515/rpp-2017-0016

Constructivist Approach in a Paradigm of Public School Teachers′ Professional Development in Great Britain, Canada, the USA

2017· article· en· W2727351154 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueComparative Professional Pedagogy · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Methods and Teacher Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProfessional developmentCurriculumPedagogySociologyPoliticsInterviewProfessional studiesFaculty developmentCognitively Guided InstructionEngineering ethicsPolitical scienceMathematics educationPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The article dwells on professional development of public school teachers as an inevitable constituent of education systems in the 21 st century. In such economically developed countries as Great Britain, Canada and the USA, the problem of preparing teachers to a difficult and responsible task of upbringing and educating future citizens always remains topical. The authors define the following aim and objectives of their research: to conduct analysis of scientific and pedagogical literature and to define the notion of teachers′ “professional development”; to research a place and role of the constructivist approach to professional development of teachers. Some aspects of the problem under research have been studied by foreign and domestic scientists: political, social, cultural and economic aspects of teachers′ professional development (L. Darling-Hammond, M. Tight); elaboration of professional development curricula (C. Pratt); content of teachers′ professional development (N. Dana Fichtman, S. Zepeda); concept-oriented instruction (J. Guthrie); continuing professional development (Ya. Belmaz, A. Kuzminskyi, O. Kuznietsova). The research methodology comprises theoretical (logical, structural and systematic methods, induction and deduction, comparison and compatibility, analysis and synthesis) and applied (observations, questioning and interviewing) methods. The research results have been presented.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.164
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it