MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1928441525 · doi:10.22329/celt.v8i0.4267

Teaching Culture Perception: Documenting and Transforming Institutional Teaching Cultures

2015· article· en· W1928441525 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Erika Kustra, Florida Doci, Kaitlyn Gillard, Catharine Dishke Hondzel, Lori Goff, Danielle Gabay, Ken N. Meadows, Paola Borin, Peter Wolf, Donna E. Ellis, Hoda Eiliat, Jill Grose, Debra Dawson, Sandy Hughes

Bibliographic record

VenueCollected Essays on Learning and Teaching · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvaluation of Teaching Practices
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversityUniversity of WaterlooMcMaster UniversityQueen's UniversityToronto Metropolitan UniversityWestern UniversityWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrganizational cultureInstitutionPerceptionTeaching and learning centerTeaching methodPsychologyHigher educationFaculty developmentMathematics educationPedagogyFocus groupGraduate studentsQuality (philosophy)Medical educationSociologyProfessional developmentMedicinePolitical sciencePublic relationsSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An institutional culture that values teaching is likely to lead to improved student learning. The main focus of this study was to determine faculty, graduate and undergraduate students’ perception of the teaching culture at their institution and identify indicators of that teaching culture. Themes included support for teaching development; support for best practices, innovative practices and specific effective behaviours; recognition of teaching; infrastructure; evaluation of teaching and implementing the student feedback received from teaching evaluations. The study contributes to a larger project examining the quality of institutional teaching culture.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.345 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCollected Essays on Learning and TeachingSame topicEvaluation of Teaching PracticesFrench-language works237,207