Professional learning design framework: supporting technology integration in Alberta
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
Researchers around the world are interested in knowing how to support teachers in developing both their technology skills and their understanding of how educational technologies can provide opportunity to engage all learners at their skill and interest level in learning activities that were not possible without technology. The solution involves the design and development of teacher professional learning (PL). This study examines a snapshot of one school district, which has experienced a growth in available digital student technology occurring at the same time when teachers experienced a loss of traditional pen and paper resources. Qualitative and quantitative data were gathered and analysed to determine what features of PL would best support teachers in this district. These findings were then considered within the scope of government suggested policy, frameworks and reports. The final suggested framework is for a PL that is collaborative, grade and subject relevant; offers hands-on opportunities; is supported by coaching; is based on research; and is supported by leadership which provides both time and a collaboratively developed vision.Published: 5 February 2018Citation: Research in Learning Technology 2018, 26: 1989 - https://dx.doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v26.1989
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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