Investigating the Effectiveness of Professional Development Presentations in Language Institute: Needs More or Enough
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of professional development has grown immensely in universities especially after the pandemic, with studies showing that presentations improve teacher efficiency, teacher and student motivation, student learning, and teacher involvement in academic activities. They may, however, be viewed as a facilitating device and as part of a culture of 'improvement,' which suggests a lack of interest and commitment, less or no involvement in academic activities, lack of autonomy, and more expectations. However, there is a relatively little known study in this field. This article attempts to fill up the gaps in our understanding by using data from teacher participants who attended presentations as a part of the teacher professional program at the English language Institute, Jazan University. The follow-up survey includes male and female (n=169) teachers working in various colleges. The findings suggest teachers considered the presentations extremely essential and provide significant guidance and support for routine teaching and research. They did emphasize, however, the implication of the professional development initiatives to accomplish teaching and learning outcomes, enhance collaboration and communication between decision-makers and teachers, between teachers, and across institutions, and also create a mechanism that will include topics related to unresolved teachers’, students and classroom problems. Also, the article advocates for a PD paradigm in which teachers are actively engaged in teaching and learning activities that push them to apply content, reflect, and solve problems both individually and in groups inside and beyond the classroom.
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 | 0.047 | 0.142 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".