Investigating the Longer-term Impact of a Professional Development Program through Follow-up Interviews with College Teachers
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
Few research studies have monitored the longer-term impact of professional development (PD) programs on teachers in higher education. For example, do changes in perspectives on teaching and learning that teachers experience in a PD program persist over time? How might they evolve? In this presentation the author first summarizes the results of her original two-year qualitative study of Quebec CEGEP (college) teachers’ perspectives on teaching and learning within a PD program. She then describes the results of a follow-up qualitative study that she conducted with the same teachers five years later. In the follow-up study, teacher interviews were coded using the constant comparative method (Maykut & Morehouse, 1994, 2002). Three major conceptual themes emerged: teachers reported engaging (outside of teaching), innovating (within teaching) and evolving (professionally and personally). Threads that appeared in the original study re-emerged in follow-up findings. Monitoring the longer-term impact of PD programs can shed valuable light on the on-going process of teacher development.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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 it