Trial by Hire: The Seven Stages of Learning to Teach in Higher Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This phenomenological study describes seven stages of learning to teach at the university level. Through the use of narratives, twelve Canadian university professors reveal their beliefs and attitudes about teaching and learning as they struggle to become better teachers within various academic settings. The purpose of the study was to develop a better understanding of self-directed and transformative learning as it relates to adults who engage in on-the-job-training. Data analysis resulted in eight themes which occurred in seven developmental stages: Warming, Forming, Informing, Storming, Performing, Reforming, and Transforming. The findings suggest that a better understanding of the stages of learning to teach in higher education could: 1) enable faculty to gain confidence in their teaching ability earlier on in their careers (Bain, 2004); 2) assist faculty developers to better meet the changing needs of faculty (Cranton, 2001); and 3) guide administrators in their efforts to promote the scholarship of teaching and learning within their academic milieu (MacKeracher, 1996).
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 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 | 0.017 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".