MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072265082 · doi:10.1119/1.4795361

Teaching Assistant Professional Development by and for TAs

2013· article· en· W2072265082 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Physics Teacher · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovative Teaching Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of the Fraser ValleyUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProfessional developmentMedical educationQuality (philosophy)Teaching assistantGraduate studentsPsychologyMathematics educationPedagogyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In most large universities, much of the undergraduate teaching responsibility falls on graduate student teaching assistants (TAs), who are by then experienced students, but relatively inexperienced instructors. Institutions have a responsibility to offer quality instruction to undergraduate students and thus are responsible for preparing the TAs to teach. Unfortunately, many TA training programs fall short of effectively improving TAs' teaching skills because they lack sufficient practical skills training, opportunities for practice and feedback, and follow-up.1 This paper describes a year-round TA professional development program that addresses these shortcomings by offering three complementary professional development programs: a core workshop, a mentor program, and a course-specific training program.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.748
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.338 · 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