Faculty Engagement In Professional Development
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
Responses to the transition to online learning during the pandemic underscores the importance of faculty engagement in professional development (PD) to enhance their teaching practices. However, the creation and offering of PD opportunities does not always lead to faculty engagement. Using a change management perspective (the ADKAR framework), this paper examines the facilitators and barriers to instructor engagement in a self-paced, online PD program addressing instructional skills for managing students’ experiences of test anxiety in the classroom. Seven university faculty members participated in focus groups to share their experiences of a pilot PD program in the program. The focus group data were deductively analyzed using the ADKAR framework. Key themes were identified, corresponding to the outcomes of ADKAR: awareness, desire, knowledge, ability, and reinforcements. Findings emphasized the value of considering PD as a change project, while also recognizing staff well-being as a significant factor that impacts engagement with the change process.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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