Teacher Collaboration in a Geographically Remote School Jurisdiction.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined how teachers in a geographically remote location experienced participation in a collaborative, professional development group project designed to develop student performance assessment tools. Participating teachers completed focus group and individual interviews as well as personal teaching efficacy surveys. All teachers new to the jurisdiction also completed the survey so comparisons could be drawn between participants and nonparticipants. Participants felt that being away from the normal routines of teaching and supervision allowed them to reflect on their practice, discuss strategies, and really talk to colleagues. The experience made them feel professional and valued as people. Teachers reported increased curricular knowledge and changes in expectations for students as a result of working with the project. They noted that their school administrators facilitated participation in the project. Teachers mentioned shared philosophy as an important factor in the project. Challenges to collaboration included lack of time, divergent staff interests, and school culture. Interview data showed increased contact among project members over the course of the year. Efficacy beliefs were strengthened and enhanced by participation in the project. Many participants conducted inservice presentations on the subject to other teachers in the jurisdiction. (Contains 38 references.) (SM) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. Teacher Collaboration in a Geographically Remote School Jurisdiction Lucinda Jenkins University of Alberta 7-104 Education North Edmonton, AB, T6G 2G5 cinjen@telusplanet.net Jose da Costa University of Alberta 7-104 Education North Edmonton, AB, T6G 2G5 jose.da.costa@ualberta.ca Paper prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association in Seattle WA., April 10-14, 2001 1 PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it. Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".