MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130660491 · doi:10.47678/cjhe.v31i1.183385

Review of Using Consultants to Improve Teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, Number 79

2001· article· en· W2130660491 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alenoush Saroyan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Higher Education · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCollaborative Teaching and Inclusion
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationTeaching and learning centerTeaching methodHigher educationPsychologyMedical educationComputer scienceMedicineEconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This volume is a compilation of a series of presentations made at the 1998 International Consortium for Educational Development in a session on models of individual instructional consultation.The converging message of the chapters is the need for formal pedagogical development of faculty and the merit of peer consulting in addressing this need.The sourcebook is written by practitioners for practitioners and as such, it will be a useful reference for instructional development centres and their staff.Both editors, Christopher Knapper and Sergio Piccinin, are actively involved in faculty development activities in their respective institutions, as are the remaining chapter contributors.Though the reader may not find the description of various approaches to peer consulting terribly novel, reading about peer consulting approaches as they have been implemented internationally (Canada, the United States, Britain, Norway, Australia) and in a range of postsecondary institutions is bound to be of interest.The first chapter, co-authored by the editors, offers an overview about the individual consulting process as one of the services typically offered by instructional development centres.The authors underscore the need for instructional development centres to clearly articulate the conception of teaching that underpins their instructional consulting and guides them in using strategies to diagnose problems and to bring about change.The authors then raise several questions which frame the content of subsequent chapters.For instance: Who are the users of instructional development centres?What kinds of issues prompt individuals to seek guidance from faculty developers?What kinds of skills are needed in peer consulting?How are these skills developed?Who should be a consultant: disciplinary peers or pedagogical specialists?What is the best process for selecting consultants and what kind of support can be most beneficial to consultants?

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.005

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Higher EducationSame topicCollaborative Teaching and InclusionFrench-language works237,207