Canadian Teachers ’ Learning Practices and Workload Issues: Results from a National Teacher Survey and Follow-Up Focus Groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
teachers from across Canada were sent English language questionnaire forms, inquiring into their practices and opinions concerning their own on-going learning. Respondents were asked to comment on any informal learning they may have done in the past year in their workplaces, their homes and their communities. They were also asked to report on any formal learning activities in which they participated including courses, workshops and conferences. Most questions replicated those asked in a similar survey undertaken in 1998 survey, and also followed closely questions which were asked of Canadian adults generally, in national telephone surveys conducted in 1998 and again in 2003. In total, 1024 useable responses were received, for an overall response rate of almost 50%. During the spring of 2004, eight focus groups were conducted in three provinces, to explore in more depth, issues raised in the national survey. In January 2005, a second round of focus groups was initiated, beginning with two groups conducted in Vancouver. From the national survey, over 90 % of all teachers indicated that they had engaged in formal courses and workshops in the previous year. Similarities and differences among
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 | 0.007 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".