Teaching Opportunities For Graduate Assistants(Toga)
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 NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract Teaching Opportunities for Graduate Assistants (TOGA) Abstract This paper describes the evolution and components of a program designed to enhance the teaching opportunities and expertise of graduate teaching assistants in the Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science at Memorial University of Newfoundland. The primary focus of the program is to provide professional development to graduate teaching assistants related to teaching and learning. It is a collaborative initiative involving the Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, the School of Graduate Studies and the Instructional Development Office in the Division of Distance Education and Learning Technologies. Introduction The Teaching Opportunities for Graduate Assistants (TOGA) program operating within the Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science at Memorial University is underpinned by three main guiding principles: to enhance the development of graduate teaching assistants with respect to teaching and learning; to more positively impact the learning of undergraduate students; and to support the ongoing mentoring of graduate students by individual faculty. Currently, graduate programs in many North American universities include opportunities for graduate students to experience teaching-related activities and professional development opportunities related to teaching and learning. Many examples of this resulted from the Preparing Future Faculty initiative in the United States1. Canadian universities such as The University of Waterloo, The University of Victoria, and the University of Western Ontario also offer such opportunities2.Wulff and Austin (2004) argue that graduate teaching assistants should be given a variety of teaching assignments as part of a systematic process3. This is possible within the TOGA model. Evolution of Model The original model for TOGA that was piloted throughout our university from 2005 - 2007 encompassed three main categories of teaching assignments for graduate student teaching assistants (TAs). Teaching assistants at level 1 were considered to be beginning or novice TAs who would not provide much direct instruction to undergraduate students. At level 2, a graduate teaching assistant would be more involved in providing instructional support to undergraduate students and employed in such roles as tutoring, providing assistance in labs, or facilitating small group discussions. At level 3, graduate teaching assistants would be assigned such roles as being a course teaching assistant (teaching to a maximum of three hours), a professional development facilitator for TOGA 2 teaching assistants, or a course curriculum assistant. A systematic program of professional development was organized and provided for the graduate teaching assistants at the TOGA 2 and TOGA 3 levels. Completion of a professional development program designated at each level is required in order for the graduate student to be eligible for a TOGA 2 or TOGA 3 appointment. When a graduate student is assigned to the TOGA 2 or TOGA 3 level, he/she receives a stipend of $250 or $500, respectively, from the School of Graduate Studies in addition to the normal compensation for the TA task4.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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