Ask not what post-secondary education can do for psychology; ask what psychology can do for post-secondary education.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract As psychologists we need to take the lead in reinventing post-secondary education. It is to go beyond we need to embrace the of in order to transcend the research/teaching dichotomy. It is to be more reflective about our teaching; we need to become more ardent theorists and practitioners of and learning, especially when it comes to digital technologies. It is to revisit educational research; we need to help post-secondary educators understand how to conduct useful research in this field. Of course we psychologists all want good students in our undergraduate courses and even better ones as graduate students and postdoctoral fellows. We want talented and capable new faculty members to join us as colleagues in our departments and at our universities and colleges. But where is all of this quality supposed to come from? From education, and especially post-secondary education, I assume. So it is natural to wonder, What can postsecondary education do for psychology? However, in this article I explore the flip side of this question because it is more productive to ask instead What can psychology, and we as psychologists, do for postsecondary education? As Eileen Bender and Donald Gray (1999) point out, we are all vulnerable to viewing the demands of research and as diametrically opposing forces drawing upon our and creative energies. Since research is the more prestigious of these two poles of our professional lives, we are moved to seek release time from our loads in order to focus on our I believe it is for us to transcend this (false) dichotomy. I offer three qualifications. First, I am not arguing against research nor am I in any way seeking to imply that we should do less of it. As the Canadian author of Canadian introductory psychology textbook adaptation, I have plenty of opportunity to survey Canadian psychology. I can truthfully tell you that I am in awe of the sweep of Canadian psychology, including that which takes place outside the ambit of academic psychology departments. We conduct amazing, worldclass research here in Canada and I would not have it any other way. Second, I am not writing in defense of as it has been traditionally practiced. Instead, I argue that the for teaching is past. There is nothing to be gained for Canadian psychology by putting more effort into what Bender and Gray (1999) characterize as a view of as personal, idiosyncratic, and ephemeral, quite unlike the heavily scrutinized and replicable activity we identify as research. Third, I am not writing against us psychologists. For obvious reasons, the discipline of psychology regularly produces more than its fair share of excellent teachers and scholars of teaching. Instead, I seek to invite even greater participation on your parts. I have spoken across Canada, usually to cross-disciplinary audiences interested in postsecondary teaching. I am constantly struck by how much they appreciate the insights we psychologists have to offer. And I am even more struck by how much they need them. I am writing, then, to argue against the research/ dichotomy that Bender and Gray (1999) described. Rather than spending less researching or more just teaching, I would like to explore what we can do to transcend this false dichotomy between and I follow Ernest Boyer's (1990) vision of as involving four intertwined processes of discovery, application, integration, and teaching. For Boyer, who coined the term, the scholarship of teaching is not an oxymoron. I am now the recipient of several awards, from Brock University, from the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations, from the Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (a 3M Fellowship), and now from the Canadian Psychological Association (2005 Award for Distinguished Contributions to Education and Training in Psychology). …
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,014 | 0,047 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,010 | 0,009 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,016 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,011 | 0,012 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,041 | 0,014 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».