Beyond the workshop: An interpretive case study of the professional learning of three elementary music teachers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article outlines the methodology and findings from an interpretive collective case study exploring the professional learning of three elementary music teachers. Participants were purposefully selected based on their differing career stages, background, and teaching situations, and each participant was interviewed five or six times over the course of the 5-month study. Additional data sources included field notes from classroom observations, a variety of artifacts provided by the participants, and responses to Pre-Interview Activity prompts. Through hermeneutic analysis of individual case data related to each participant’s teaching and experience of professional learning, participants were found to have a variety of highly personalized learning processes which they used as mechanisms for their ongoing professional growth. Cross-case analysis revealed three larger themes related to the participants’ professional learning: (1) The quality of the participants’ learning was always instrumental and related to specific personal goals for/issues in practice; (2) meaningful professional learning had a temporal element and was characterized by continuity; and (3) the participants’ professional learning was social in nature.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".