Towards Developing a Common Conception of Research-Based Teaching and Learning in an Academic Community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to determine whether bioscience teachers and researchers in a research-intensive university have consistent views on research-based teaching, and to evaluate whether teachers’ conceptions and views on practical teaching methods are aligned. Fifty-eight teachers completed a questionnaire concerning conceptions and practices of teaching. By using qualitative content analysis, we distinguished three categories of conceptions: teacher-centred, student-centred and a view whereby pedagogical research was valued. Views on teaching practices were divided into five categories, according to how the teachers viewed students’ involvement in research. A highly significant correlation indicated that teachers with more student-centred conceptions were likely to implement practices involving students in research and the academic community. Our study shows a plethora of conceptions of research-based teaching in an academic community and suggests that to enhance teaching quality in higher education, cooperation on the development of common conceptions is necessary; they will not evolve by themselves amongst academics.
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 | 0.179 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.076 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.035 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; 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".