Bibliographic record
Abstract
The late Robert Smith, professor of adult education in the doctoral program at Northern Illinois University, when asked why adult education principles were not applied in his classroom, famously responded, "Higher education is not adult education."The question raised within this book is, "Why not?" Clearly doctoral students are adults; they respond as adult learners.As research scholars, they aspire to self-directed academic excellence.They seek to walk the talk, to be responsible citizens who not only understand the world, but also act to transform it.In recent years, many authors have shed light on the hidden world of academe, seeking to reenvision the traditions and practices of the doctorate (Golde & Walker, 2006;Walker, Golde, Jones, Bueschel, & Hutchings, 2008).Emerging research on adult learning and adult education practice holds special promise for interrogating all that has been taken for granted in doctoral education.This book examines principles and best practices in the field of adult education to determine their relevance and applicability to doctoral education.Two traditions of higher education in the United States are juxtaposed by a clash of purposes that pull the practice of doctoral education in divergent directions.One purpose that looms large is the guardianship of disciplines, safeguarding the canon of academic truth and the standards of best practice, determining who is worthy of carrying the mantle of the discipline.This requires faculty vigilance and careful attention to curriculum and the means of assessing learning (Nilson, 2014).The role is largely that of experts mentoring and disciplining protégés through rigorous feedback and grades.On the other hand, there are also those who view doctoral education as a venue in which to nurture the emergence of scholars who will expand the canon and open up new possibilities for practice in the discipline (Rhodes, 2001).Such a view embraces creativity and innovation, experimentation with alternative approaches to research, and crossing disciplinary boundaries.It is to these champions of constructivism, who seek not only to transmit knowledge as experts but also to promote knowledge creation through dialogue, that the chapters of this book will speak most convincingly.Contributors to this volume reflect on some of the most deeply held values of adult educators-values that separate their work from the more traditional and formal values attributed to higher education.They demonstrate how their values could be embedded into doctoral studies in ways that would strengthen outcomes in a range of disciplines.Students in doctoral programs are, after all, adults.They come with an abundance of experience that they can reflect on, share with others, critique, and transform into knowledge.You don't learn from experience.As Myles Horton said, "You learn from experience that you learn from.You have to reflect on that experience, you have to look at it critically" (Moyers, 1981).Doctoral study is the most potent forum
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 | 0.004 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.379 | 0.272 |
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".