MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Une perspective SoTL au développement professionnel des enseignants au supérieur : Qu’est-ce que cela signifie pour le conseil pédagogique?

2010· article· fr· W1976796525 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Claire Bélanger

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvaluation of Teaching Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesScholarship of Teaching and LearningSociologyPhilosophyPedagogyTeaching method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.022
Scholarly communication0.0120.012
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.003

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 head0.218
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations18
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and LearningSame topicEvaluation of Teaching PracticesFrench-language works237,207