A Multiple Case Study of Teaching-Focused Professional Development Programs Offered at Three Different Types of US Institutions of Higher Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teaching-focused professional development (PD) programs offered at institutions of higher education (IHEs) are uniquely positioned to be levers of change that improve the quality of undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education in ways that broaden participation in STEM education, workforce development, and career pathways in the United States (US). PD programs and their potential to transform undergraduate STEM education, however, are understudied. This multiple-case study compares suites of PD programs offered at three IHEs in the US: a community college, an emerging research institution, and a research-intensive university. Each suite of PD programs is characterized in terms of program structure, implementation, and potential to transform undergraduate STEM education. The presented results illustrate the existence of a wide range of ways in which PD programs are structured and implemented. A key finding is a suite of PD programs offered at these IHEs has greater potential to transform undergraduate STEM education when embedded in an institutional culture that highly prioritizes the teaching enterprise. Lastly, the results are synthesized into an innovative framework. The framework can be used as a tool to design, implement, and evaluate PD programs so they have greater potential to transform undergraduate STEM education in the US.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".