Ask not what post-secondary education can do for psychology; ask what psychology can do for post-secondary education.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As psychologists we need to take the lead in reinventing post-secondary education. It is to go beyond we need to embrace the of in order to transcend the research/teaching dichotomy. It is to be more reflective about our teaching; we need to become more ardent theorists and practitioners of and learning, especially when it comes to digital technologies. It is to revisit educational research; we need to help post-secondary educators understand how to conduct useful research in this field. Of course we psychologists all want good students in our undergraduate courses and even better ones as graduate students and postdoctoral fellows. We want talented and capable new faculty members to join us as colleagues in our departments and at our universities and colleges. But where is all of this quality supposed to come from? From education, and especially post-secondary education, I assume. So it is natural to wonder, What can postsecondary education do for psychology? However, in this article I explore the flip side of this question because it is more productive to ask instead What can psychology, and we as psychologists, do for postsecondary education? As Eileen Bender and Donald Gray (1999) point out, we are all vulnerable to viewing the demands of research and as diametrically opposing forces drawing upon our and creative energies. Since research is the more prestigious of these two poles of our professional lives, we are moved to seek release time from our loads in order to focus on our I believe it is for us to transcend this (false) dichotomy. I offer three qualifications. First, I am not arguing against research nor am I in any way seeking to imply that we should do less of it. As the Canadian author of Canadian introductory psychology textbook adaptation, I have plenty of opportunity to survey Canadian psychology. I can truthfully tell you that I am in awe of the sweep of Canadian psychology, including that which takes place outside the ambit of academic psychology departments. We conduct amazing, worldclass research here in Canada and I would not have it any other way. Second, I am not writing in defense of as it has been traditionally practiced. Instead, I argue that the for teaching is past. There is nothing to be gained for Canadian psychology by putting more effort into what Bender and Gray (1999) characterize as a view of as personal, idiosyncratic, and ephemeral, quite unlike the heavily scrutinized and replicable activity we identify as research. Third, I am not writing against us psychologists. For obvious reasons, the discipline of psychology regularly produces more than its fair share of excellent teachers and scholars of teaching. Instead, I seek to invite even greater participation on your parts. I have spoken across Canada, usually to cross-disciplinary audiences interested in postsecondary teaching. I am constantly struck by how much they appreciate the insights we psychologists have to offer. And I am even more struck by how much they need them. I am writing, then, to argue against the research/ dichotomy that Bender and Gray (1999) described. Rather than spending less researching or more just teaching, I would like to explore what we can do to transcend this false dichotomy between and I follow Ernest Boyer's (1990) vision of as involving four intertwined processes of discovery, application, integration, and teaching. For Boyer, who coined the term, the scholarship of teaching is not an oxymoron. I am now the recipient of several awards, from Brock University, from the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations, from the Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (a 3M Fellowship), and now from the Canadian Psychological Association (2005 Award for Distinguished Contributions to Education and Training in Psychology). …
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 | 0.014 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.014 |
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".