Teachers’ Professional Development in Global Contexts : Insights from Teacher Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on our editorial work on the Sage Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (2017), this chapter reviews current research that allows us to extend the scope of teacher educators and their learning. We developed a distinction between two kinds of scholarship, integration and disruption. A scholarship of integration allows us to bring ideas together while a scholarship of disruption allows us to both to contemplate Dewey’s (1929) idea of uncertainty and to take an inquiry stance. We use these two kinds of scholarship to discern different interpretations that guide understandings of teacher educator learning. By stretching the boundaries of teacher education outside of schools of education and classrooms, we review relevant research literature to offer insights that can help develop new ways of engaging in teacher education. We conclude that research on teacher education is not about clear answers, solutions, or theories but about understanding the complexities of how we are thinking about, and engaging in, the practices and policies of teacher education.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".