Integrating Teaching with Other Aspects of Professorial Work: A Comparison of Experienced and Inexperienced Faculty's Role Conceptualizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reports on a study which investigated the extent to which experienced and inexperienced faculty at Canadian universities integrate their various professorial roles. How faculty conceptualize their work was explored from the perspective of Kelly's (1955) personal construct theory. Experienced faculty were found to integrate the various roles associated with professorial work more strongly than inexperienced faculty. Furthermore, when all activities associated with the teaching role were considered as a single variable, experienced faculty were found to integrate the teaching function more strongly with research and service activities than did their inexperienced peers. Further comparative analyses focussing on specific professorial activities revealed that the two groups showed the highest level of agreement in how they conceptualized the research role, but the highest level of disagreement in how they conceptualized the teaching role. The results of this repertory grid study are discussed in relation to the present culture of higher education that espouses integration of faculty roles as a goal, but at the same time allows only for little opportunity for new faculty to develop the ability to integrate. Some suggestions for the practice of faculty development are offered.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".