MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Peer Teaching with Student Assistants

2009· article· en· W2065654541 on OpenAlex
Damaris K. M'mworia

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTeaching Theology & Religion · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Education and Schools
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClass (philosophy)Mathematics educationContext (archaeology)Quarter (Canadian coin)PsychologyField (mathematics)Process (computing)PedagogyComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The context: All the students at Edward Waters College have to take “Introduction to Biblical Studies” irrespective of their majors. This has often presented me with challenges but the greatest challenge has been to engage students who are not religion majors. Many of these students feel that this course is not necessary and that it delays their progress in their major fields. I realized that even though class participation accounted for a quarter of the final grade quite a number of students were coming to class unprepared and their participation levels were very low. Discussions with a number of students revealed that they spent most of their time preparing for classes in their major fields and gave minimal attention to biblical studies because they did not see its use in their field of study and their career goals. After trying a number of strategies with minimal success, I decided to involve students more in the teaching process. The pedagogical purpose: I use this strategy: to engage and motivate students; to enable students to explore the connections between biblical studies and other academic fields; to build the relationship between teacher and students as we work together in preparation to teach; and to encourage students to use their skills and talents in and outside of the class environment. Description of the strategy: After every class I choose two or three students to serve as teaching assistants for my next class. I try to select students from different majors. I meet with these students a day before the class and we discuss how we will present the material. Although I provide needed leadership for the discussion, I allow enough flexibility for the students to express their views. We always discuss the connection between the topic and their major fields. I request that these students explain this connection in class. After making a decision on how we will present the material, we distribute the duties among ourselves. Teaching assistants arrive early for class and are expected to behave and dress like teachers. Why it is effective: Since I started using this strategy, I have seen a tremendous increase in students' engagement and interest in the class. Having different “teachers” in every class gives students something to look forward to. My relationship with students is enriched by this experience. Some students are not willing to participate and it takes time to encourage them. For such students I give them a small part to play even if it is distributing papers or cleaning the board. Another challenge is ensuring that subject matter presented in class is current and correct.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.499
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.339 · 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