Exploring the Impact of Professional Development Partnerships on Teaching and Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Professional development for teachers is essential for embracing change and there are a variety of ways to provide it. The purpose of this study was to review a professional development program facilitated through a partner organization linked to a school. The research question guiding this study was: What are teachers’, administrators’, and partners’ perspectives about the impact of sustained professional development provided through a partnership at an alternative school for K-12 in Southern Alberta? The researcher followed the design of mixed methods methodology using interviews and document analysis. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted with 29 teachers, three administrators, and three partners to explore the impact of the partnership. The perspectives of participants offered a rich understanding of the professional development program facilitated by the partners. Qualitative data were thematically analysed and quantitative data, which included accountability pillar and school review data, identified during document analysis were utilized to analyse trends to explore the potential influence of the partnership. Qualitative and quantitative data were integrated and triangulated to increase legitimation and to reduce the potential of researcher bias. The results of this study were presented through three major findings that emerged from the analysis: (a) scheduled time for professional development; (b) culture of pressure and support; and (c) changes in teaching practices. The importance of this study is multi-faceted and offers significant contributions to the body of research about the value of partnerships particularly in relation to the provision of sustained professional development within schools. The Partnership Model for Transformational Teacher Professional Development was developed based on the results from this study and offers a framework for those considering forming partnerships for sustained onsite professional development directed towards changing teaching practice and improving student learning. A variety of stakeholders hold potential as Professional Development Partners (PDP) and offer partnership opportunities for schools in different contexts. Potential PDP could include representatives from various stakeholders such as school districts, Ministries of Education, universities, teachers’ associations, teacher-leaders, permanent coaches, consultants, and innovation designers.
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 | 0.030 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".