Bibliographic record
Abstract
På baggrund af en kvalitativ interviewundersøgelse af undervisere ved Aarhus Universitet lavet i 2012, tematiserer artiklen, hvordan undervisere udvikler deres faglige og pædagogiske kompetencer i forhold til at kunne skabe progression inden for innovation og entreprenørskab forstået enten som didaktik, arbejdsformer i faglige forløb eller som fag på universitetet. I arbejdet med progression er det en udfordring at integrere de nye faglige dimensioner i det kernefaglige felt. Den seneste model for progression inden for innovation og entreprenør-skab siger, at det er den lærendes generelle erfaringsniveau, der er den afgørende progressionsskabende faktor (Progressionsmodellen, Fonden for Entreprenørskab, 2013b). Samtidig skelner international forskning inden for studiekompetenceområdet mellem niveauer, hvor indlejret viden er det mest avancerede kompetenceniveau (Barrie, 2002).Ifølge progressionsmodellen og den nævnte kompetenceforskning er erfaring og dybt integreret læring altså centrale dimensioner i progression. Men hvad er underviserens rolle heri? Underviserens professionelle udviklingsarbejde forekommer at være underbelyst i forhold til, at underviseren er den legitime garant for integrationen af nye faglige dimensioner og for den studerendes kompetenceniveau. Interviewundersøgelsen forholder sig til spørgsmålet om progression gennem de deltagende underviseres beskrivelse af betydningslag i entreprenørskabsbegrebet koblet til de praksisformer i undervisningen, der knytter sig hertil samt et indblik i undervisernes refleksioner over deres kompetenceudviklingsprocesser. Artiklens bidrag til progression er at se underviserens motivation og kompetenceudvikling som forudsætninger herfor. Based on a qualitative study of five teachers in the Faculty of Arts at Aarhus University that took place during 2012, the article thematizes how teachers develop their professional and educational qualifications in innovation and entrepreneurship. The study uses categories such as didactics, working processes in academic courses or courses at university as key themes. Participating teachers’ descriptions of their concepts of entrepreneurship in their teaching practices are used to chart their progress. This material provides an insight into the teachers’ reflections on their development processes, challenges and different modes of teacher authority related to entrepreneurship teaching in universities. Together, the gathered data contribute to discussions on student teacher development by identifying the importance of the teachers’ motivation as a precondition for professional and educational development.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".