MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Continuing Education of Faculty as Teachers at a Mid-sized Ontario University

2011· article· en· W2050881952 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Lorraine M Carter, Bettina Brockerhoff-Macdonald

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvaluation of Teaching Practices
Canadian institutionsLaurentian UniversityNipissing University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExcellenceSociologyUniversity facultyHumanitiesPedagogyLibrary sciencePolitical scienceMedical educationArtMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The findings outlined in this paper are the result of focus groups conducted with faculty at a mid-sized Ontario university. These nine faculty, all of whom have received awards of excellence from their university for their teaching, shared their insights about how they developed as teachers over time. More specific topics explored were as follows: how they first learned about teaching; how they continue to learn about teaching; resources that might have helped early in their teaching careers at the university; and advice they have about teaching for new university teachers, mid-career teachers, and teachers approaching retirement. While many of the observations offered here are specific to Ontario and some of the literature review is North American in focus, the paper offers valuable insights into how faculty learn to be teachers which may be helpful to universities around the world. Cet article présente les résultats d’entrevues menées avec des groupes de discussion composés de membres du corps professoral d’une université ontarienne de taille moyenne. Les 9 professeurs participant ont tous reçu des prix d’excellence de leur université pour leur enseignement. Lors de ces rencontres, ils ont expliqué comment ils ont évolué à titre d’enseignants au fil du temps. Les sujets particuliers suivants ont été abordés : leurs premiers apprentissages en matière d’enseignement; leurs apprentissages subséquents; les ressources qui les ont aidés tôt dans leur carrière d’enseignant à l’université; les conseils qu’ils ont à offrir aux enseignants universitaires qui viennent de débuter leur carrière, à ceux qui sont à mi-parcours et à ceux qui approchent de la retraite. L’article fournit un aperçu utile sur la façon dont les membres du corps enseignant apprennent à devenir des enseignants. Même si bon nombre des observations présentées sont spécifiques à l’Ontario et si une partie de la recension des écrits est d’origine nord-américaine, ces informations peuvent servir aux universités à l’échelle internationale.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.665
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0110.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.127
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and LearningSame topicEvaluation of Teaching PracticesFrench-language works237,207