MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070657583 · doi:10.1080/13601440902970007

Transformative educational development scholarship: beginning with ourselves

2009· article· en· W2070657583 on OpenAlexaff
Susan Wilcox

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal for Academic Development · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAdult and Continuing Education Topics
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformative learningScholarshipSociologyPedagogyMathematics educationPsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Self‐study is a process of examining our beliefs and actions and exploring questions of practice that arise in particular contexts; the provisional answers we formulate present implications for practice. If we approach self‐study guided by an ethic of authenticity, it can be an effective approach to the scholarship of teaching and learning, and has the potential to counter the performative culture of our institutions and transform higher education. The paper provides an introduction to self‐study for educational developers who are interested in this challenging yet rewarding approach to scholarly inquiry. Educational developers are encouraged to use self‐study to explore, improve – and perhaps transform – their own practice, and to contribute to the growth of academic development as a field of study and practice. Le scholarship du développement pédagogique visant la transformation : débuter avec nous‐mêmes L’étude de soi (self‐study) est un processus nous permettant d’examiner nos croyances et nos actions, et d’explorer des questions pratiques qui surviennent dans des contextes particuliers. Les réponses provisoires que nous formulons nous fournissent des pistes pour la pratique. Si nous approchons l’étude de soi en étant guidé par une éthique de l’authenticité, il peut s’agir d’une approche efficace de scholarship de l’enseignement et de l’apprentissage, et avoir le potentiel de faire obstacle à la culture de la performance présente dans nos institutions. Cette approche peut même transformer l’enseignement supérieur. Cet article fournit une introduction à la notion d’étude de soi pour les conseillers pédagogiques qui sont intéressés par cette approche de l’enquête académique se voulant à la fois gratifiante mais pleine de défi. Les conseillers pédagogiques sont encouragés à utiliser l’étude de soi pour explorer, améliorer – et peut‐être transformer – leur propre pratique, et contribuer à la croissance du développement pédagogique en tant que champ d’étude et de pratique.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.090
Scholarly communication0.0190.031
Open science0.0030.018
Research integrity0.0060.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.348 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations34
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal for Academic DevelopmentSame topicAdult and Continuing Education TopicsFrench-language works237,207