The Points of School Directors on Peer Observation as a New Professional Development and Supervision Model for Teachers in Turkey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the study is to determine the views of school managers’ towards peer observation as an alternativeteacher professional development and complementary supervision model. The study was conducted through a mixresearch model which combines quantitative and qualitative methods based on convergent parallel design. 121school managers voluntarily joined the study at the end of the conference to which the researcher was invited asguest speaker. The results of the study in quantitative dimension indicated that peer observation was considered byschool managers as an alternative teacher development model to promote cooperation among teachers;self-awareness of teachers; motivation; solving their problems cooperatively; learning new methods. The qualitativeresults also indicated that majority of the participants were in favour of peer observation as an alternative personaldevelopment method for teachers; the participants recommended that it should be carried via volunteers betweendifferent schools; just friendly and positive feedback should be given to the teacher who teaches the same subject;should be carried in a friendly school climate where there is no rivalry among teachers. On the other hand, someparticipant expressed their negative concerns as there wouldn’t be enough teachers and time; the teacher wouldhesitate to be observed because of political and professional rivalries, lack of confidence and trust among teachers.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".