Peer Coaching in a Research-Based Teachers’ Professional Learning Method for Lifelong Learning: A Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teacher professional development (PD) has been claimed to be the foundation for transforming school culture. Any PD activity with a human infrastructure that is composed of teachers, researchers, and policy makers who together form a professional learning community (PLC) situated in a local school must incorporate the team’s appreciation of collective efficacy and sense of community in the learning environment. A PLC must exemplify the concept of ongoing collaborative experiential learning through experimentation and reflection on emerging practices. It is expected, therefore, that with everyone's active involvement in the support structure, teachers' PD will be positively impacted and reflected in approaches to professional development. Fundamental to the adult learning environment is the process of collaborative inquiry where participants critically reflect on their own experiences. The process of collaborative inquiry encapsulates the notion that as teachers are regarded as lifelong learners, they need to gather insights from their experiences with the support of their colleagues to ensure that their learning process contributes to the enhancement of the quality of teaching and learning outcomes. Collaborative inquiry captures the idea of co-learning PD where professional knowledge and skills are acquired and sustained in an authentic teaching environment that aims to foster sustainable changes in teaching practices. Grounded in the principles of adult learning, this article presents a methodological perspective on how educational institutions can form a professional learning community within the school context where problems from past experiences are critically examined and serve as a foundation to professionally reflect, think, and act. Il a été affirmé que le développement professionnel des enseignants est la base de la transformation de la culture scolaire. Toute activité liée au développement professionnel ayant une infrastructure humaine composée d’enseignants, de chercheurs et de décideurs qui forment une communauté d’apprentissage professionnelle (CAP) dans une école locale doit incorporer l’appréciation de l’équipe pour l’efficacité collective et le sentiment de communauté dans le milieu d’apprentissage. Une CAP doit illustrer, par l’expérimentation et la réflexion sur les pratiques émergentes, le concept de l’apprentissage expérientiel collaboratif et continu. On s’attend alors que l’implication active de tout le monde dans la structure de soutien aura un impact positif sur le développement professionnel des enseignants et sur les approches à ce cheminement. Le processus d’enquête collaborative où les participants se livrent à une réflexion critique sur leurs propres expériences constitue un élément fondamental du milieu de l’éducation des adultes. L’enquête en collaboration résume la notion qu’en tant qu’apprenants à vie, les enseignants se doivent de recueillir des connaissances de leurs expériences avec l’appui de leurs collègues et pour s’assurer que leur cheminement contribue à l’amélioration de la qualité de l’enseignement et des résultats d’apprentissage. L’enquête collaborative englobe l’idée du co-apprentissage dans le contexte du développement professionnel au cours duquel des connaissances et des habiletés professionnelles sont acquises et maintenues dans un milieu pédagogique authentique qui vise la promotion de changements durables dans la pratique enseignante. Fondée sur les principes de la formation des adultes, cet article présente une perspective méthodologique sur la formation, par les établissements d’enseignement, d’une communauté d’apprentissage professionnelle dans un milieu scolaire où les expériences du passé font l’objet d’un examen critique et servent de base à des réflexions et des actions professionnelles. Mots clés : développement professionnel, formation en cours d’emploi, perfectionnement professionnel, collaboration
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 | 0.021 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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".