教师调查:随机概率调查与教师小组调查的利弊

IF 2.7 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
John Jerrim
{"title":"教师调查:随机概率调查与教师小组调查的利弊","authors":"John Jerrim","doi":"10.1002/rev3.3428","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Two commonly used approaches to capturing information about teachers are random probability surveys and teacher panels. This paper reviews the strengths and limitations of these two approaches in the context of capturing information about the teacher workforce. A case study is then presented drawing upon recent teacher survey data collections in England. Although both designs should continue to play an important role in generating evidence about the teaching profession, random probability surveys of teachers should be used sparingly, and only when they will be properly resourced.","PeriodicalId":45076,"journal":{"name":"Review of Education","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Teacher surveys: The pros and cons of random probability surveys versus teacher panels\",\"authors\":\"John Jerrim\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/rev3.3428\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Two commonly used approaches to capturing information about teachers are random probability surveys and teacher panels. This paper reviews the strengths and limitations of these two approaches in the context of capturing information about the teacher workforce. A case study is then presented drawing upon recent teacher survey data collections in England. Although both designs should continue to play an important role in generating evidence about the teaching profession, random probability surveys of teachers should be used sparingly, and only when they will be properly resourced.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45076,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Review of Education\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Review of Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3428\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3428","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要获取教师信息的两种常用方法是随机概率调查和教师小组调查。本文回顾了这两种方法在获取教师劳动力信息方面的优势和局限性。一个案例研究,然后提出借鉴最近的教师调查数据收集在英国。尽管这两种设计都应该继续在产生关于教师职业的证据方面发挥重要作用,但对教师的随机概率调查应该有节制地使用,而且只有在它们得到适当资源的情况下才应该使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Teacher surveys: The pros and cons of random probability surveys versus teacher panels
Abstract Two commonly used approaches to capturing information about teachers are random probability surveys and teacher panels. This paper reviews the strengths and limitations of these two approaches in the context of capturing information about the teacher workforce. A case study is then presented drawing upon recent teacher survey data collections in England. Although both designs should continue to play an important role in generating evidence about the teaching profession, random probability surveys of teachers should be used sparingly, and only when they will be properly resourced.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Review of Education
Review of Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
8.30%
发文量
63
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信