Assessing Aspects of Professional Collaboration in Schools: Beliefs Versus Practices
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
Much has been written about the potential of professional collaboration to advance the purposes of schooling, yet much remains to be learned about the extent to which teachers themselves value such practices. This article reports the findings of a survey questionnaire completed by 565 randomly selected classroom teachers in 96 school districts in Western Canada. Using selected dimensions of organizational culture as the basis of inquiry, the researchers investigated teachers' perceptions regarding collaborative activities, diversity in education, the usage of teacher time, and the nature of professional relationships. Comparisons of teachers' espoused beliefs with impressions of actual conditions and circumstances in their schools reaffirmed some popular conceptions about the potential for high-involvement schools to realize educational goals. However, they also showed that teachers continue to wrestle with conflictual circumstances arising from the confluence of their own aspirations, the expectations of others, and the continuing limitations that severely curtail the realization of normative learning communities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it