Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fostering higher-order thinking skills of students is important aim for 21st century education. Teachers, as important elements in a positive learning environment, are the key to high quality education. As for the importance of teacher professional collaboration in teacher development, Hargreaves and Fullan (2012) pointed out that teachers’ professional collaboration will benefit not only students but also the whole school community, and even society at large. In Chinese context, the Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China (2010) issued a policy in 2010 promoting teacher professional collaboration and development as a background of this study, implying that teachers must be collaborating actively with colleagues in daily professional life to achieve collective growth for the purpose of improving student learning. Based on the policy reality, this study explored teacher professional collaboration in the Chinese education context. It looked in particular at practices and issues in teacher professional collaboration. This article begins with the definitions of teacher professional collaboration, followed by a detailed exploration of this type of collaboration in Chinese education and issues related to its implementation. This study will provide holistic picture of teacher collaboration in China for contributing to theoretical development and educational practice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".