MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7113545410

Realising potential: the role of critical pedagogies in teacher CPD

2023· other· en· W7113545410 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenuePure (Coventry University) · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsCentre for Global Health Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformative learningCritical thinkingDisadvantageCritical reflectionProfessional developmentReflective practiceCritical pedagogyProfessional learning communityEducational research
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

School continuing professional development (CPD) spending has dropped by 40 per cent since 2018 (Weston, 2022), and budgets continue to tighten even though research evidence emphasises the vital impact of effective teacher professional development (EEF, 2021), especially in closing the disadvantage gap. This article highlights some of the key findings from my small research study funded by the British Council programme ‘Connecting Classrooms through Global Learning’ (CCGL). It explored the transformative potential of teacher CPD that utilises critical pedagogies to enhance student awareness and critical understanding of global issues. It focused on the pedagogical approaches of Philosophy for Children (P4C) and Global Learning (GL), which not only draw on critical thinking but are underpinned by critical reflection, questioning and the challenging of assumptions. P4C is a multidimensional approach to teaching and learning aimed at developing four core types of thinking – caring, collaborative, critical and creative – through philosophical enquiry, building a community of enquiry focused on engaging in philosophical dialogue as a means of exploring and moving towards deeper knowledge and/or understanding (SAPERE, 2022).<br/>The full research report (Simpson, 2022) provides a substantial literature review, exploring what makes effective teacher CPD, and the role of critical pedagogies in transforming teaching and learning. This was further analysed alongside teacher surveys and informal interviews, which outlined teachers’ experiences of specific CPD and their perceived impact back in the classroom. <br/>This article intends to provide an overview of some of the more significant research findings presented, as provocations for reflection for senior leaders and educational practitioners. These aim to initiate professional conversations on transformative teacher CPD and school practices, in order to meet the needs of students learning for an uncertain global future.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.389
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePure (Coventry University)French-language works237,207