Supervisors’ Feedback and Teacher Professional Development in a Context of Students’ Linguistic Diversity in OECD Countries
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
Teacher professional development was examined in the context of student linguistic diversity in countries of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Data for this quantitative study were taken from the OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS, 2013) with teachers (N = 170,005) from 6500 schools. Factor analyses enabled us to identify two factors associated with teacher professional development andtwo factors pertaining to the teachers’ perceptions of their supervisor’s feedback on such aspects as skills development and career perspectives, collaboration and support actions with the students, and teaching and assessment practices. Our results show that skills and professional growth development correlated differently depending on the importance the teachers gave to the feedback they received in the presence or absence of linguistic diversity in their classroom. Implications of this diversity on the teachers’ perceptions are discussed, as well as socioprofessional characteristics and teacher professional development.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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