MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Good Teachers, Scholarly Teachers and Teachers Engaged in Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: A Case Study from McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

2011· article· en· W2076084688 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Susan Vajoczki, Philip Savage, Lynn Martin, Paola Borin, Erika Kustra

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvaluation of Teaching Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WindsorToronto Metropolitan UniversityMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipSociologyTeaching and learning centerPedagogyMathematics educationTeaching methodPsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper defines and operationalizes definitions of good teaching, scholarly teaching and the scholarship of teaching and learning in order to measure characteristics of these definitions amongst undergraduate instructors at McMaster University. A total of 2496 instructors, including all part-time instructors, were surveyed in 2007. A total of 339 surveys were returned. Indices of good teaching, scholarly teaching and scholarship of teaching and learning were developed. The data illustrated a strong correlation between good teaching and scholarly teaching and between scholarly teaching and scholarship of teaching and learning. The perceived value placed upon teaching varied across the different Faculties. New instructors and those engaged in scholarly teaching and scholarship of teaching and learning perceived teaching to be more valued than their peers. Le présent article définit et opérationnalise les définitions d’enseignement efficace[1], d’enseignement érudit[2] et de la publication sur l'enseignement supérieur[3] afin de mesurer les caractéristiques de ces définitions chez les enseignants de premier cycle de l’Université McMaster. Au total, 2 496 enseignants, y compris tous ceux qui travaillent à temps partiel, ont été sondés en 2007 et 339 questionnaires ont été retournés. Les chercheurs ont élaboré des indices d’un bon enseignement, d’un très bon enseignement et d’un excellent enseignement. Les données illustrent une forte corrélation entre un bon enseignement et un très bon enseignement, de même qu’entre un très bon enseignement et un excellent enseignement. La valeur perçue accordée à l’enseignement variait selon les différentes facultés. Les nouveaux enseignants pratiquant un très bon enseignement et un excellent enseignement trouvaient l’enseignement plus utile que leurs pairs. [1] good teaching, [2] scholarly teaching, [3] scholarship of teaching and learning

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.690

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0300.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.199 · 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.

Study designQualitative
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations22
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