Utilisation of Teachers' Resource Centres for Continuous Professional Development among Primary School Teachers in Tanzania
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many teachers rarely engage in continuous professional development activities despite having teacher resource centres nearby. The study explored teachers' resource centres (TRCs) uses for effective continuous professional development (CPD) among primary school teachers. The study employed a phenomenological research design where 18 purposefully selected teachers, resource centre coordinators and TRC facilitators participated in an in-depth interview. Also, researchers reviewed key documents to establish the actual use of the TRCs. The findings show teachers understand that the purpose of TRCs is for training that constitutes teachers' CPD. Further, teachers misinterpreted the purpose of TRCs and strategies for utilising them. While some teachers use TRCs as learning and interaction places, others use them as examination centres and meetings for non-academic matters. Lastly, findings show teachers acknowledge the usefulness of teachers' resource centres in enhancing literacy teaching skills and upgrading computer skills. Therefore, TRCs are critical in strengthening CPD despite the prevailing challenges to their proper utilisation, such as insufficient teaching facilities that jeopardise the achievement of their intended goal.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".