Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The late Robert Smith, professor of adult education in the doctoral program at Northern Illinois University, when asked why adult education principles were not applied in his classroom, famously responded, "Higher education is not adult education."The question raised within this book is, "Why not?" Clearly doctoral students are adults; they respond as adult learners.As research scholars, they aspire to self-directed academic excellence.They seek to walk the talk, to be responsible citizens who not only understand the world, but also act to transform it.In recent years, many authors have shed light on the hidden world of academe, seeking to reenvision the traditions and practices of the doctorate (Golde & Walker, 2006;Walker, Golde, Jones, Bueschel, & Hutchings, 2008).Emerging research on adult learning and adult education practice holds special promise for interrogating all that has been taken for granted in doctoral education.This book examines principles and best practices in the field of adult education to determine their relevance and applicability to doctoral education.Two traditions of higher education in the United States are juxtaposed by a clash of purposes that pull the practice of doctoral education in divergent directions.One purpose that looms large is the guardianship of disciplines, safeguarding the canon of academic truth and the standards of best practice, determining who is worthy of carrying the mantle of the discipline.This requires faculty vigilance and careful attention to curriculum and the means of assessing learning (Nilson, 2014).The role is largely that of experts mentoring and disciplining protégés through rigorous feedback and grades.On the other hand, there are also those who view doctoral education as a venue in which to nurture the emergence of scholars who will expand the canon and open up new possibilities for practice in the discipline (Rhodes, 2001).Such a view embraces creativity and innovation, experimentation with alternative approaches to research, and crossing disciplinary boundaries.It is to these champions of constructivism, who seek not only to transmit knowledge as experts but also to promote knowledge creation through dialogue, that the chapters of this book will speak most convincingly.Contributors to this volume reflect on some of the most deeply held values of adult educators-values that separate their work from the more traditional and formal values attributed to higher education.They demonstrate how their values could be embedded into doctoral studies in ways that would strengthen outcomes in a range of disciplines.Students in doctoral programs are, after all, adults.They come with an abundance of experience that they can reflect on, share with others, critique, and transform into knowledge.You don't learn from experience.As Myles Horton said, "You learn from experience that you learn from.You have to reflect on that experience, you have to look at it critically" (Moyers, 1981).Doctoral study is the most potent forum
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 | 0,004 | 0,029 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,379 | 0,272 |
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 ».