Team Teaching Of Thermodynamics: Rapid Instructional Development In Young Academics
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract Session 3675 Team Teaching of Thermodynamics: Rapid Instructional Development in Young Academics Alan E. Nelson and Suzanne M. Kresta University of Alberta Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2G6 Canada Introduction A large undergraduate teaching service course is often viewed as a teaching ghetto, where young academics learn how to teach by doing without any substantial guidance or mentoring. New faculty are often assigned to such courses during the first term of appointment and are expected to perform in the classroom without having formal teaching training or education. These new faculty are immediately confronted with the many content based aspects of university education, including lecture preparation, development of assignments, and writing of examinations. However, the successful educator must devote a similar effort to developing effective and efficient teaching practices based on student learning styles, learning objectives, and cognitive levels appropriate to the level of the course. The time needed to recognize and address diverse student learning styles, be an effective communicator, develop classroom enthusiasm through active learning and effective interaction, and to be flexible in student learning outcomes is often lost to the more urgent need to develop the course content. Consequently, student evaluations of the new instructor’s effectiveness and overall course performance are often less than anticipated, and the initial enthusiasm and energy for undergraduate teaching are lost. In most instances, this is not the result of a lack of effort by the young academic, but rather the constraints of other professional expectations. The time demands placed on these young faculty typically exceed the number of hours in a day and they quickly search for areas to recoup time. With the expectation to “publish or perish” many reduce the effort placed on course development in order to develop their research programs. While many successful educators advocate spending no more than 2 hours preparing for each new lecture, inexperience with preparing a comprehensive lecture coupled with re-learning much of the material frequently means that new instructors exceed this recommended time allotment. The time required outside of the classroom to address student questions for a large service course further reduces the time Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2004, American Society for Engineering Education
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».