ENGINEERS TEACHING COMMUNICATION: EVALUATING THE IMPACT OF TA TRAINING ON GRADUATE STUDENT COMMUNICATION, TEACHING AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
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
The Engineering Communication Programworks with engineering TAs in the Department ofMechanical and Industrial Engineering at the Universityof Toronto to deliver communication instruction in coredesign courses. Engineering TAs’ disciplinary expertiseaffords increased credibility with students, and we havehad consistent anecdotal evidence from TAs that teachingcommunication has made them better communicators.Currently, training involves a combination of instructionand mentorship, both from faculty and each other.Here, we investigate TAs’ increased confidence andskill in communication and teaching: what they finduseful, how the training has influenced theircommunication and teaching practice, and what morethey would like to explore in the future. An initial surveyand discussion found that confidence was shaped byexperience, course-specific training, instructor feedback,and peer learning. We hope to build on these findings infuture through a broader study of TAs in the Faculty andfurther development of our TA training programs
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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