Educational Developers and Their Uses of Learning Theories: Conceptions and Practices
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This thesis reports on a study designed to understand how learning theories fit in the practice of educational developers; specifically, developers’ conceptions of learning theories, their use of theories, and, finally, factors that influence the way learning theories shape developers’ practice. To investigate these questions, a qualitative study was undertaken with eleven Canadian university educational developers, all formally associated with a campus-wide teaching and learning centre. By taking an exploratory approach, while drawing upon learning theories and educational development literature, aspects of educational developers’ understanding and use of learning theories were highlighted. \nThe findings showed that educational developers in this study: (i) conceptualize learning theories as lowercase ‘lt’ as opposed to uppercase ‘LT’, and (ii) define learning theories based on their prior disciplines. These practitioners didn’t associate learning theories with formal academic theories aimed at understanding a situation; instead they had formed their own synthesis of theories to help them perceive the characteristics of a particular situation. Also, the way the participants defined and conceptualized learning theories seemed to correspond to their prior disciplines and areas of study. Five definitions of learning theories were identified among educational developers: philosophy, language, educational-psychology, holistic, and neuroscience-based. In terms of how theories shape developers’ work, developers were categorized in three groups: (1) those who had a tendency to implicitly use learning theories –focusing more on practical explorations for achieving a desired outcome (seven in total); (2) developers who had a tendency to consciously use learning theories – taking more of a comprehensive approach by examining their assumptions and focusing on causes and effects that influence their practice (three in total); and, (3) one developer who had characteristics of both groups. Factors such as educational background, professional identities, and perceived audience readiness appeared to influence participants’ uses of learning theories. Seeing their work as part of a collective, and attending to the emotional needs of their audience also seemed to impact these practitioners’ work. \nConsidering the limited research examining how educational developers conceptualize learning theories and the way theories inform their practice, this study contributes in generating discussions and future research in a community that continues to grow and situate itself within the higher education landscape.
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 | 0,050 | 0,089 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,009 | 0,030 |
| Communication savante | 0,017 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,009 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 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 ».