Moving towards democratic classrooms for the students at the University of Toronto through teaching assistant workshops: The Centre for Teaching Support and Innovation (CTSI), University of Toronto.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Centre for Teaching Support & Innovation (CTSI), University of Toronto (U f T) has been organizing teaching assistance teaching sessions called “Teaching Assistants Training Program” (TATP) for the Teaching Assistants and Course Instructors in the Roberts library since 2002 for the promotion of democratic classroom learning to U f T students. The U f T Scarborough campus and U f T Mississauga campus also facilitate some teaching learning workshops for TAs and course instructors too. The idea behind this TAs teaching training is to prepare TAs and students to be democratic in their practices of teachings and learning. As well facilitate peer teaching and peer learning process among students. In fall 2011, CTSI facilitated seventeen workshops for U f T graduate students and TAs. The author attended eleven of them. Both TAs and graduate students of U f T attended in CTSI workshops from September 201 to November 2011. Average participants were 30. This paper written on the basis of review literature on the teaching learning, his personal experiences that he had gathered from the TATP workshops and his classrooms experiences with in other universities. Workshop discussions and exercises were in the form of group conversations and dialogue among workshop facilitators and workshop participants for collaborative learning lesions among the participants, TA and the graduate students. The author gained attractive teaching techniques from these workshops sessions . The democratic discussions and exercises in the sessions led to participated TAs and graduate students mutual growth, appreciation, deliberation, hope and autonomy among them. The author found many mature students and TAs (more than 50 years) and students with physical disabilities had attended these workshops who had different learning styles than the young. Hence CSTI could include sessions on adult teaching strategies and students with disabilities. Moreover CTSI could include follow up on post-workshop TA performance in the classrooms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".