Exploring a New Model and Approach to the Scholarship of Teaching: The Scholarship Teaching Academy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Scholarship of Teaching (SoT) has been researched and investigated over the decades from multiple perspectives. When accessing and engaging the SoT discourse, one has to understand both what the scholarship of teaching is and how it evolved. It is through a critical examination of the diverse range of models and approaches to SoT that one may begin to understand the complex factors involved in shaping the discourse. The plus side to all this is that even though we have multiple definitions and working descriptions of the scholarship of teaching, it remains an evolving area of study. In this paper, I examine several models and approaches and propose a new model: the scholarship teaching academy. Within the broad context of the discussion on SoT, pertinent issues related to access to the scholarship discourse and empowerment of early to mid-career academics is assessed. The scholarship teaching academy responds to the needs of a growing diverse demographic population and to the changing culture of institutions by granting access to early and mid-career academics and also empowering them through the provision of resources and support structures such as mentoring programs. Depuis des dizaines d’années, l'avancement des connaissances en enseignement (ACE) a fait l’objet de recherches et d’études utilisant des perspectives multiples. Lorsqu’on aborde le discours sur ce sujet ou lorsqu’on y participe, il faut comprendre de quoi il s’agit et comment cette discipline a évolué. Pour comprendre les facteurs complexes qui façonnent le discours, il faut procéder à un examen critique des divers modèles et approches du concept d'avancement des connaissances en enseignement (ACE). L’aspect positif est que malgré les multiples définitions et descriptions de travail existantes, cette discipline continue à être un champ d’étude en évolution. Dans cet article, j’examine plusieurs modèles et approches et propose un nouveau modèle : l’institut de l’ACE. Dans le cadre élargi de la discussion sur cette discipline, j’évalue les sujets pertinents liés à l’accès au discours portant sur ce sujet et au renforcement des capacités des enseignants universitaires qui sont au début ou au milieu de leur carrière. L’institut de l’ACE répond aux besoins d’une population croissante et diversifiée sur le plan démographique et à la culture changeante des institutions en garantissant un accès aux enseignants au début ou au milieu de leur carrière et en renforçant leurs capacités par l’entremise de ressources et de structures de soutien comme les programmes de mentorat.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.084 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.037 | 0.039 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".