Challenges and opportunities of a ‘blended’ professional development program with K-12 science teachers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A priority for science education is to enhance pedagogical innovation in classrooms with practicing science teachers through professional development (PD). One way forward is to use a 21st century approach by designing a blended (online and face-to-face) program. While this approach is not new, this PD model has not been investigated as part of a large-scale program in Canada. Since blended programs can vary considerably, evidence is still sparse on its impact on teachers’ practice. Over the project duration, over 200 K-12 science teachers participated in the project. The aim was to support science teachers in implementing innovative science teaching practices (e.g., inquiry) in their classrooms. The program had three elements: face-to-face workshops, collaboration in an online learning platform, and knowledge mobilization through sharing of developed resources. Based on findings we provide recommendations and contribute to the research call to identify evidence-based practices from studies on blended-learning PDs. This includes attending to technological supports, accountability considerations, and integrating online and face-to-face sessions. While changes in participants practices were not sizeable, our study contributes to research that is specific to science teaching communities in Canada.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".