Faculty Experience Teaching in an Interdisciplinary First-Year Seminar Program: The Case of the University of Guelph
Bibliographic record
Abstract
First-year seminar programs have been a feature on the landscape of post-secondary teaching and learning in the United States, since they first appeared in the 1880s at Boston University (Mamrick, 2005). More recently, they have begun to appear at Canadian universities. For example, first-year seminars were introduced a decade ago at the University of Guelph, as a campus-wide initiative. To recognize the first decade that these unique, interdisciplinary seminars have been offered, faculty were surveyed to understand better the impact of the program on those teaching in it, as well as their perceptions of their students. The experience of the University of Guelph suggests first-year seminar programs can have a significant influence on the teaching and professional experience of faculty and encourages them to extend their networks beyond the department and across the campus. Significantly, seminars serve as sites for pedagogical experimentation that can influence departmental curricula. Faculty who teach a first-year seminar have high satisfaction and report myriad benefits to morale, teaching, and research. The salutary effects of a first-year seminar program are not local but would be transferable across post-secondary institutions. Aux États-Unis, on a beaucoup parlé des programmes de séminaires de première année dans le paysage de la pédagogie dans l’enseignement supérieur, depuis leur première apparition dans les années 1880 à l’Université de Boston (Mamrick, 2005). Plus récemment, ils ont commencé à apparaître dans les universités canadiennes. Par exemple, des séminaires de première année ont été introduits il y a dix ans à l’Université de Guelph en tant qu’initiative à l’échelle du campus. Afin de marquer la première décennie au cours de laquelle ces séminaires interdisciplinaires uniques ont été offerts, une enquête a été menée auprès des professeurs pour mieux comprendre les effets du programme sur les enseignants, ainsi que les perceptions de leurs étudiants. L’expérience de l’Université de Guelph suggère que les programmes de séminaires de première année peuvent avoir une influence importante sur l’enseignement et sur l’expérience professionnelle des professeurs et peuvent les encourager à élargir leur réseau au-delà du département et sur tout le campus. Il est significatif de constater que les séminaires servent de sites pour des expériences pédagogiques qui peuvent influencer les programmes d’études départementaux. Les professeurs qui enseignent un séminaire de première année en retirent une grande satisfaction et rapportent une myriade d’avantages pour le moral, l’enseignement, et la recherche. Les effets salutaires d’un programme de séminaires de première année ne sont pas ressentis uniquement au niveau local, ils sont transférables à tous les établissement d’enseignement supérieur.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.050 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".