Educating Professionals and Professionalising Education in Research-Intensive Universities: Opportunities, Challenges, Rewards and Values
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
Abstract This study describes what higher education institutions (HEIs) that are known for their research excellence are doing to implement current student and teaching oriented higher education (HE) policies in England and Wales. Pressures to reach increasingly higher levels of excellence in both teaching and research challenge existing structures and mechanisms in these researchintensive universities (RIUs). Options for overcoming challenges are discussed by bringing together perspectives of different stakeholders. This thesis is based on analysis of documentary and empirical data to gain insight into perspectives and experiences of stakeholders of the implementation of current HE policies in England and Wales. Documentary data consisting of publicly available material about HE policies has been analysed by an interpretive analysis of policy, and papers about research have been systematically reviewed. The contents of interviews with academics in four RIUs have been analysed in case studies. This study contributes to existing research on ‘professionalism’ (see, for example, Kolsaker, 2008), ‘effective teaching’ (see, for example, Hunter & Back, 2011), and ‘evaluating teaching quality’ (see, for example, Dornan, Tan, Boshuizen, Gick, Isba, Mann, Scherpbier, Spencer, Timmins, 2014). This study also complements The UK Higher Education Academy’s (HEA) research in this area including Gibbs’ report on quality (2010) as well as earlier work on reward and recognition (2009). Key findings give insight into a troublesome relationship between teaching and research activities, which is at the core of many of the challenges RIUs are facing. Findings showing academics strong interest in their students, teaching, and research highlight their engagement in the development of these key activities. These support recommendations for development processes in RIUs involving organisation wide engagement to build parity of esteem between research and teaching to achieve aims to reach their full potential in terms of excellence in HE.
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 | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it