MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7024593081

Self-reflection as a tool for inclusive learning and teaching

2017· other· en· W7024593081 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueResearch Output (Edinburgh Napier University) · 2017
Typeother
Langueen
DomaineDecision Sciences
ThématiqueScientific Measurement and Uncertainty Evaluation
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésTransformative learningCurriculumHigher educationEquity (law)General partnershipIntercultural competenceCompetence (human resources)Professional developmentReflective practice
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Over the past twenty years Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) have become transformative spaces as the student population has expanded. National and institutional policies have brought issues of widening access and internationalisation to the forefront, leading to an increasingly diverse student population. As a result, teaching spaces have also required transformation. A key factor in successful transformation is the development of reflective practitioners, who can systematically evaluate their teaching experiences, and use that evaluation to change their future practice (Ashwin et al, 2015). This paper explores the impact of a small scale project in collaboration with the Higher Education Academy (HEA) which focuses on embedding equality and diversity in the curriculum. The project under discussion chose to focus on curriculum design, and to develop reflective practitioners in key curriculum leadership roles, where they have the opportunity to influence and develop others. The project was influenced by the U.S based ‘Seeking Educational Equity and Diversity’ (SEED) programme, which aims to “promote change through self-reflection and interpersonal dialogue”, training facilitators who can drive forward personal, institutional and societal change in relation to equality and diversity competence (https://nationalseedproject.org, N.D).Successful reflection requires dialogue: the articulation of our ideas to others is an essential element of critical thinking, therefore the process of reflection cannot occur in the absence of criticality (Brockbank and McGill, 2007). Based on the SEED model, a series of six reflective conversations was developed, adapted to address issues of specific relevance to the institution. Fook (2007) suggests that reflection begins with the discovery and unsettling of assumptions, and the conversations were designed to challenge existing assumptions around diversity and inclusion, encouraging recognition and evaluation of the participants’ own practice.Participants were invited from both academic and professional services departments, as well as student representatives. The conversational sessions were designed to be intimate with between 8-12 people in attendance. The conversational topics were chosen through a a preliminary study conducted by the researchers to identify what the key issues around equality and diversity were in the context of the specific institution. This involved a desk-based review of programme materials and interviews with students and staff, the findings of which informed the topics discussed during the reflective conversation sessions.The conversations were then evaluated through the use of pre- and post-event questionnaires, and also through participant observation. This data was analysed thematically, in order to evaluate the impact on the participants of their self-reflection, and its implications for inclusive practice. Overall, the sessions have been received positively and plans for the dissemination of the reflective conversations across the university are now taking place with the aim of embedding the sessions in staff personal development planning. It is anticipated that the development of academic and professional staff as reflective practitioners will:•Identify and disseminate areas of good practice. •Increase awareness of equality and diversity issues and foster further collaborative learning between the academic and student community.•Act as a springboard for further inclusive practices within the student experience. •Provide skills and tools that can be used in the development, approval and re-approval of curriculum.•Create an inclusive teaching and learning space which enables students to achieve their full potential.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,060
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,076
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,060
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,315

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0600,076
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0050,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0060,020
Communication savante0,0170,014
Science ouverte0,0040,020
Intégrité de la recherche0,0040,007
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0080,003

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,243
Tête enseignante GPT0,473
Écart entre enseignants0,230 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2017
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueResearch Output (Edinburgh Napier University)Même sujetScientific Measurement and Uncertainty EvaluationTravaux en français237 207