Supporting a Collaborative Professional Learning Experience: Teachers’ Perspectives of Distinctive Features of Professional Development Delivered Primarily Through In-Class Modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To support teachers in implementing best practices, the choice of implementation modality must be tailored to the practice settings. In-class modeling may be an appropriate professional development modality for some practice settings because it avoids teachers feeling vulnerable about being observed and may help establish a more equal relationship between the teacher and the person providing professional development. This observational study examined teachers’ perceptions of how changes in practice may occur when professional development is delivered primarily through in-class modeling. Eleven kindergarten teachers were interviewed before, immediately after, and three months after a professional development program on interactive book reading, using in-class modeling as the primary modality. We identified four mechanisms for practice change that are distinctive of the in-class modeling component of the program. In addition, we identified four mechanisms operationalized in other components of the program, and one contextual factor consistent with prior knowledge of effective professional development features. Implications for the use of in-class modeling for professional development in school settings are discussed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".