Responding to the challenges of student-staff partnership: the reflections of participants at an international summer institute
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
This article contributes to the growing scholarly literature about students as partners in learning and teaching in higher education by describing an initiative designed to support partnership and a study investigating international staff and student perspectives. The initiative – an international summer institute – is a four-day, professional development experience that brought together students and staff from seven countries to learn about partnership and develop specific partnership projects. Participants in the institute were invited to contribute to a qualitative study exploring their experiences of students as partners work and their perceptions of the institute’s capacity to support it. Given that much existing research on this topic tends to be celebratory, we focus here on the challenges participants ascribed to student-staff partnership, and on the features of the summer institute they thought particularly useful in helping them to navigate these difficulties. Looking beyond the summer institute, we consider the implications of these findings for those looking to support partnership more broadly.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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