The impact of individual consultation on the teaching of younger versus older faculty
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study examines the effect of age of instructor on student ratings of teaching performance after individual consultation. Instructors self-presented over an 11-year period at a large Canadian university teaching service, where each received one of three interventions. End of term student ratings of the teaching of younger and older instructors are compared before consultation, immediately post consultation, and 1–3 years after year of consultation. Younger faculty obtained significantly improved ratings immediately after consultation, while older faculty achieved significant rating increases 1–3 years post consultation. Results from an earlier study on the impact of individual consultation on teacher ratings are reevaluated using this larger sample of faculty. Generally, results in this analysis parallel the original research. Consultation produced changes in student ratings both immediately after consultation as well as longitudinally, thus confirming the utility of intervention in producing enduring pedagogical improvements. Control analyses ensured that improvements were a result of the interventions and not an artefact of time.
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.
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 | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it