Bibliographic record
Abstract
A midcareer member in the sciences stopped at my office to ask for assistance in designing a short course that he will be teaching to colleagues at an international program in Mexico. Next, two early-career women called, seeking a small grant to create a peer writing group to support their scholarship and teaching. That afternoon, a department chair in the social sciences made an appointment to brainstorm how to develop a mentoring program for his six new faculty, four of whom are women and/or of color. Then a new member arrived for a consultation on ways to assess student learning in the art studio-with her four-month-old son in her arms. Her child care had cancelled, so I bounced the baby while we talked. This is a snapshot of the day-to-day work of a faculty developer as she partners with to support and enrich their work. What will be the future challenges facing these members and their institutions? What will be the issues around which are likely to need support over the next few years? What future directions will be important for campuses to consider when they make decisions about development? These questions are significant, especially in light of the changing context of roles and responsibilities. To find out some answers, my colleagues and I conducted a major study of the field of development in higher education (Sorcinelli, Austin, Eddy, and Beach 2006). We asked developers what goals and purposes guide their programs, what are the influences on their programs and practices, and what services are currently offered and the importance of those services. Perhaps most important, our survey was the first to ask developers to identify the key challenges and pressures facing members and their institutions, and what they see as potential new directions for the field of development. The individuals we asked were members of the Professional and Organizational Development (POD) Network in Higher Education, the oldest and largest professional association of development scholars and practitioners in higher education. Five hundred directors of teaching and learning centers, members, department chairs, academic deans, and other senior administrators completed our survey. They came from research and doctoral universities, comprehensive universities, liberal arts colleges, community colleges, Canadian universities, and other institutions such as medical and professional schools (Sorcinelli et al. 2006). What, then, are the issues that development programs, services, and resources will likely need to address in the next five or ten years? Faculty developers in our study identified a constellation of issues that coalesced around three primary challenges and forces of change: * The changing professoriate * The changing nature of the student body * The changing nature of teaching, learning, and scholarship The Changing Professoriate Professors today are facing a growing array of changing roles and responsibilities that will require them to engage in ongoing professional growth. Faculty developers in our study described members as being in the midst of transformational changes to their traditional roles and tasks, and identified several fundamental challenges facing and their campuses. Expanding Faculty Roles Faculty developers at liberal arts colleges and research and comprehensive universities identified expanding roles as one of the most important issues facing on their campuses. The set of tasks expected of is intensifying under increasing pressure to keep up with new directions in teaching and research. Thus, for example, new members may need to develop skills in grant-writing or in designing and offering online courses. Seasoned members may need to keep up with emerging specialties in their fields as well as to engage in more interdisciplinary work. …
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.063 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.033 | 0.047 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.031 | 0.041 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.014 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".