The coming and going: the work of educational developers when admission criteria and desired outcomes change simultaneously
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
Higher education is facing a conundrum relevant to the field of educational development: expectations regarding entrance criteria and graduation attributes are changing simultaneously. Biggs' model of constructive alignment can be used to analyze the challenges presented by these shifts in expectation and help educational developers understand their pedagogical implications. In the present article, an expanded model is proposed in which entrance requirements are added to Biggs' original conceptualization. In so doing, the length of the “learning journey” – from entrance to outcomes – can be charted. When entrance requirements and graduate attributes change simultaneously, higher education must accommodate learning journeys of varying lengths and nature. Moving targets such as these can engender a sense of frustration, if not helplessness, for academic staff responsible for curricular and pedagogical enhancement. However, rather than responding with a sense of helplessness, the educational developer should see these shifts as a real opportunity to support the implementation of a broader range of student-centred teaching/learning activities. Recommendations related to educational development consultations are offered.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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