Teaching, Learning and Interning: From Teaching Internships to Scholarly Teaching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mount Allison University, with about 2,400 students, is a small, undergraduate Liberal Arts and Science university with a long history of faculty-student collaboration in both research and cocurricular activities. In 2005, Mount Allison introduced the Undergraduate Teaching Internship Program in which professors and senior students collaborate in instruction. The program has quickly become for its faculty participants an important springboard for teaching innovation and scholarship. Almost immediately after its introduction, it became clear that the Undergraduate Teaching Internship Program addressed two distinct but overlapping needs—the first was predictable, the second less so: (a) it presented opportunities for senior students to develop skills, knowledge and values that transcend those normally associated with undergraduate education; and (b) it provided a mechanism whereby faculty could engage in scholarly reflection on teaching and Scholarship of Teaching and Learning projects. In the 5 years since its inception, internship has become not simply a peripheral program but a strong thread woven into the fabric of the university culture. While outlining some constraints of the program, this descriptive paper explains the many ways in which internship has resulted in productive, mutually beneficial collaborations between interns and their supervising professors, encouraging an even more pervasive dialogue about teaching. L’Université Mount Allisson est un petit établissement qui offre des cours dans les domaines des arts et des sciences à environ 2400 étudiants de premier cycle. Son personnel enseignant et ses étudiants collaborent depuis longtemps aux activités de recherche et aux activités parallèles au programme. En 2005, l’Université a mis sur pied le programme de stages en enseignement au premier cycle où les professeurs et les étudiants qui en sont à leur dernière année d’étude collaborent à l’enseignement. Ce programme est rapidement devenu un tremplin important en matière d’innovation et d’érudition pédagogique pour le corps enseignant qui y participe. Pratiquement dès sa création, il est devenu évident que le programme comblait deux besoins distincts qui se chevauchaient. Le premier était prévisible, le deuxième l’était moins : a) il fournissait des occasions aux étudiants qui termine leur parcours d’apprentissage d’acquérir des compétences, des connaissances et des valeurs qui transcendent celles normalement associées aux études de premier cycle et b) il constituait un mécanisme permettant aux membres du corps enseignant de réfléchir aux questions pédagogiques et aux projets relatifs à l’avancement des connaissances en enseignement et en apprentissage. Au cours des cinq premières années, le programme de stages n’est pas simplement devenu un programme marginal, mais plutôt un fil solide tissé dans la trame de la culture de cette université. Tout en soulignant certaines contraintes du programme, cet article descriptif explique les nombreuses façons dont les stages se sont traduits par une collaboration productive et mutuellement bénéfique entre les stagiaires et les professeurs qui les supervisaient. L’article illustre également comment les stages ont favorisé un dialogue sur l’enseignement encore plus omniprésent qu’avant.
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 | 0.090 | 0.126 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.034 |
| 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".