MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W19957642

Faculty Development: The Challenge Going Forward

2007· article· en· W19957642 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mary Deane Sorcinelli

Notice bibliographique

Revuenon disponible
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueService-Learning and Community Engagement
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBrainstormingScholarshipContext (archaeology)Medical educationPublic relationsProfessional developmentPsychologyPedagogySociologyPolitical scienceMedicineBusiness
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

A midcareer member in the sciences stopped at my office to ask for assistance in designing a short course that he will be teaching to colleagues at an international program in Mexico. Next, two early-career women called, seeking a small grant to create a peer writing group to support their scholarship and teaching. That afternoon, a department chair in the social sciences made an appointment to brainstorm how to develop a mentoring program for his six new faculty, four of whom are women and/or of color. Then a new member arrived for a consultation on ways to assess student learning in the art studio-with her four-month-old son in her arms. Her child care had cancelled, so I bounced the baby while we talked. This is a snapshot of the day-to-day work of a faculty developer as she partners with to support and enrich their work. What will be the future challenges facing these members and their institutions? What will be the issues around which are likely to need support over the next few years? What future directions will be important for campuses to consider when they make decisions about development? These questions are significant, especially in light of the changing context of roles and responsibilities. To find out some answers, my colleagues and I conducted a major study of the field of development in higher education (Sorcinelli, Austin, Eddy, and Beach 2006). We asked developers what goals and purposes guide their programs, what are the influences on their programs and practices, and what services are currently offered and the importance of those services. Perhaps most important, our survey was the first to ask developers to identify the key challenges and pressures facing members and their institutions, and what they see as potential new directions for the field of development. The individuals we asked were members of the Professional and Organizational Development (POD) Network in Higher Education, the oldest and largest professional association of development scholars and practitioners in higher education. Five hundred directors of teaching and learning centers, members, department chairs, academic deans, and other senior administrators completed our survey. They came from research and doctoral universities, comprehensive universities, liberal arts colleges, community colleges, Canadian universities, and other institutions such as medical and professional schools (Sorcinelli et al. 2006). What, then, are the issues that development programs, services, and resources will likely need to address in the next five or ten years? Faculty developers in our study identified a constellation of issues that coalesced around three primary challenges and forces of change: * The changing professoriate * The changing nature of the student body * The changing nature of teaching, learning, and scholarship The Changing Professoriate Professors today are facing a growing array of changing roles and responsibilities that will require them to engage in ongoing professional growth. Faculty developers in our study described members as being in the midst of transformational changes to their traditional roles and tasks, and identified several fundamental challenges facing and their campuses. Expanding Faculty Roles Faculty developers at liberal arts colleges and research and comprehensive universities identified expanding roles as one of the most important issues facing on their campuses. The set of tasks expected of is intensifying under increasing pressure to keep up with new directions in teaching and research. Thus, for example, new members may need to develop skills in grant-writing or in designing and offering online courses. Seasoned members may need to keep up with emerging specialties in their fields as well as to engage in more interdisciplinary work. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,063
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,076
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,063
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,331

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0630,076
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,002
Bibliométrie0,0030,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0270,023
Communication savante0,0330,047
Science ouverte0,0070,024
Intégrité de la recherche0,0310,041
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0360,014

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,087
Tête enseignante GPT0,357
Écart entre enseignants0,270 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations67
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même sujetService-Learning and Community EngagementTravaux en français237 207