Professional Development for Adjunct Teaching Faculty in a Research-Intensive University: Engagement in Scholarly Approaches to Teaching and Learning.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research-intensive universities around the world are increasingly drawing upon leading practitioners in professional fields as adjunct faculty to deliver high quality student learning experiences in diverse undergraduate and graduate program contexts. To support effective professional development in these contexts, many universities have developed flexible and responsive initiatives in order to meet the specific needs and circumstances of adjunct teaching faculty. However, very little has been documented about these initiatives. This paper is a reflective examination of the development and impact of strategic professional development initiatives for field practitioners in the Faculties of Education and Dentistry at The University of British Columbia (UBC), Canada. Our experiences suggest that professional development programs designed to meet the specific needs and circumstances of adjunct teaching faculty can enhance scholarly approaches to university teaching and learning practices. Specifically, strategically led, situated and flexible communities of practice (e.g., mentoring, post-teaching reflective debriefs, blended and distance learning professional development opportunities) were critical supports for engaging adjunct teaching faculty in research-informed and inquiry-based pedagogical methods (e.g., learning-centered assessment practices, peer review). Research-intensive universities around the world are increasingly drawing upon leading practitioners in professional fields as adjunct faculty to deliver high quality student learning experiences in diverse
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.036 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it