Transformative Learning in a faculty Professional development Context
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article considers transformative learning within the context of the Partnership Program, an instructional development initiative of the Academic Technologies for Learning unit at the University of Alberta. This initiative focused on introducing faculty to technology-enhanced teaching and learning strategies and tools, developing educational resources through a collaborative instructional development process, promoting faculty use of educational technologies within the university, and supporting faculty to change their teaching practice through participation in an instructional development project. One question asked in this study was: Does the involvement of faculty members in an instructional development project facilitate a transformation in their teaching philosophy and practice? This article focuses on three themes that emerged from the study—alignment/misalignment of expectations with experience, change in attitudes toward technology-enhanced instruction, and change in pedagogical style—and how they may relate to the presence or lack of transformative learning experiences for faculty participating in instructional development projects.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it