Une perspective SoTL au développement professionnel des enseignants au supérieur : Qu’est-ce que cela signifie pour le conseil pédagogique?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans la littérature en enseignement supérieur, surtout anglo-saxonne, l’attention est de plus en plus vouée au Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL). Nous aimerions contribuer par ce texte à la réflexion sur ce que peut signifier le SoTL pour la pratique de conseil. Nous présenterons d’abord notre conception du conseil pédagogique en tant que mesure d’accompagnement au développement pédagogique des enseignants. Nous décrirons ensuite ce qui est entendu par le SoTL et la place que cette perspective au développement en enseignement réserve au conseil pédagogique. Enfin, nous tenterons un rapprochement entre notre compréhension du SoTL et notre pratique actuelle de conseil pédagogique, laissant voir un élargissement possible de celle-ci. L’ensemble se matérialise dans un tableau qui relie entre eux le développement pédagogique des enseignants dans une perspective SoTL et le conseil pédagogique, concrétisant des visées, stratégies et contextes suggérés de conseil en fonction du développement en enseignement des enseignants et des attributs du SoTL. In the literature on higher education, especially in English, there is an increasing focus on the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL). With this paper, we would like to to address the issue of the relationship between SoTL and educational development. First, we present our conception of the role of the educational developer in teachers’ pedagogical development. We then describe what is understood by SoTL and the place it gives to educational developers’ support in enhancing teachers’ development. We conclude by attempting to tie together our understanding of SoTL and our current practice as educational developers, suggesting ways this practice might be broadened. The whole discussion takes place within an SoTL framework linking teacher development and educational development, and includes practical recommendations concerning aims, strategies and settings.
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 | 0.047 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.011 |
| 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 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".