The Scholarship of College Teaching: Research Opportunities in the New Millennium
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 paper examines some of the challenges facing contemporary Canadian community colleges and explores research opportunities related to (a) measuring the effectiveness of college teaching, (b) preparing beginning college teachers, and (c) re-conceptualizing professional development programs. First, the criteria for measuring teaching effectiveness at colleges are often derived from those used in elementary and secondary schools; questions remain as to whether, or to what degree, these criteria are appropriate measures of effective teaching in the college setting. Second, unprecedented retirements are creating an influx of beginning faculty with extensive subject expertise but often with little or no training as professional teachers; while traditional mentorship models often function as in-house induction programs, innovative pre-service training programs are being developed to more fully prepare aspirants to the profession of college teaching. Finally, some colleges are re-conceptualizing their professional development programs, employing innovative models such as Teaching Circles which are designed to build communities of scholars focused on institutional excellence in teaching. Numerous opportunities exist for research into teaching effectiveness, faculty induction, and professional development amid the changes and challenges that currently face the community colleges.
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 | 0.125 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| 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