MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Diverse Methodological Approaches and Considerations for SoTL in Higher Education

2010· article· en· W2140355658 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvaluation of Teaching Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyRigourTransformational leadershipHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophyEpistemologyPublic relations

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) is a distinctive form of research that is shaped by multi-disciplinary contexts and focuses on practice-driven institutional/curricula/classroom inquiries with an explicit transformational agenda. This essay provides critical insight to the importance of communities of SoTL practitioners, diverse investigations and methodological approaches within and across disciplines. For example, through an integrated and iterative process, a community of SoTL researchers plays a critical role to enhance and sustain on-going SoTL research. Equal to all forms of research endeavour, interpretations of SoTL research require a healthy scepticism, analysis of methodological rigour, and an openness to alternative perspectives and analysis. L'avancement des connaissances en enseignement et apprentissage (ACEA) dans l'enseignement supérieur est une forme de recherche distinctive façonnée par des contextes multidisciplinaires. Axée sur la pratique, elle est centrée sur caractérisée par des enquêtes sur des institutions, des programmes d’enseignement et des classes, tout en axée sur la pratique et visant un objectif transformationnel explicite. Cet essai fournit un aperçu critique de l’importance des communautés d’intervenants de l’ACEA et des diverses enquêtes et approches méthodologiques au sein de chaque discipline et entre elles. Par exemple, grâce à un processus intégré et itératif, la communauté des chercheurs en ACEA joue un rôle essentiel en améliorant la recherche continue sur ce sujet et en la soutenant. Indépendamment du sujet considéré, l’interprétation de la recherche sur l’ACEA suppose de faire preuve d’un scepticisme sain, d’analyser la rigueur méthodologique et d’être ouvert aux autres perspectives et analyses.

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)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.444
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0080.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.605
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.117 · 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