Book Review of "Teaching as Scholarship: Preparing Students for Professional Practice in Community Services"
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Gingras, J., Robinson, P., Waddell, J., & Cooper, L. D. (Eds.). (2016). Teaching as scholarship: Preparing students for professional practice in community services. Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. Pages: 195. Price: CDN$ 34.64 (Paperback)At Canada's first national symposium on the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) at the University of Toronto in 2005, the Concept of SoTL was introduced to a large group of Canada's university and college administrators. Along with this introduction, there were discussions around its significance to higher education as well as exploring how best to support it. In the same year, Ryerson University, like many other Canadian universities, established a research center with a principal focus on SoTL. In Teaching as Scholarship, a number of members of the Faculty of Community Service (FCS) at Ryerson University provided narratives of their educational practices inspired by the principles of SoTL. The primary focus of Teaching as Scholarship is to (a) explore new ways of bringing research and practice to the community scale for students, and (b) search for new approaches towards teaching and learning that are responsive to community needs. The significance of the book's discussions is in taking the ongoing changes of communities' needs into account and making necessary changes in the education of students who are going to work as (care) professionals within communities, accordingly. Since the focus of this book is on the fields dealing with care and/or social service provision (e.g. health care, social work, early childhood, etc.), aspects of social transformation, critical reflection, and ethics of care are highlighted throughout.The book is responding to a call to provide concrete outcomes of incorporating scholarship of teaching and learning towards the creation of positive impacts in the communities. One of the strategies proposed by Gingras et al. is to cross the boundaries of commonly-accepted meanings of teacher and researcher. This is brought about by including stakeholders (e.g., students) as partners in the process of teaching and knowledge dissemination. Kennedy and Jancar, in chapter two, explain how involving and supporting writing teaching assistants (TAs) and incorporating a focus group component in their faculty-wide writing skills initiative have led to more student engagement as well as effective learning outcomes. Bailey et al., in chapter four, describe the implementation of a pedagogical approach, Intellectual Partnerships (IPs), through which teachers and students are partners and engage in the co-creation of knowledge through creative and intellectual discussions and activities.Reflexive critique, and innovative and creative teaching practices grounded in a learner-centered context were among the other strategies, mentioned within the book, for the development of teaching and learning scholarship. In chapter seven, Gingras and Rudolph privileged and acquired a student-centered learning approach, in the context of health education, through involving students in the teaching process with the purpose of creating a space for more equitable distribution of power in learning contexts. Schwind, in the eighth chapter, shifts the focus to reflective processes as they allow for developing personal knowing in future practitioners aiming for more respectful relationships with those for whom they provide care. In the following chapter, Wehbi, Preston and Moffatt explain their experience of using art (particularly photography and multimedia) as a pedagogical approach for teaching about community issues.The purpose of Teaching as Scholarship is to provide a for educating students as professional care/service-providers within communities. At the same time, this frame is used to help secure aims of social justice (e.g., by advocating for inclusion and equity in educational practices), and social transformation. In order to address these goals, in several chapters the contributing authors articulate undertaking an ethic of care. …
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 | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,040 | 0,020 |
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 ».