Reflections on Developing the Student Consultants for Teaching and Learning Program at Reed College, USA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DEVELOPING OUR PROGRAMAt Reed College, many classes are taught as discussion-based conferences in which students and faculty must come prepared to engage in dialogue about the day's material, take risks and feel discomfort as they challenge themselves, and create shared ownership in their own active learning (Oleson, 2015).Collaboration is fundamental.The Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) opened in Fall 2014 to help faculty develop and improve their methods of instruction and to promote productive pedagogical feedback to professors (Oleson, 2016).In 2014, we started a student-consultant program at Reed since faculty-student partnerships seemed a promising approach for faculty to receive feedback essential for improvement (Cook-Sather, Bovill, & Felten, 2014).This essay, reflecting on the development of the program, was co-written by Kathy Oleson, Professor of Psychology and former Director, Center for Teaching and Learning at Reed College (2014 -2016) and Knar Hovakimyan, Reed College '16, studentconsultant for four semesters.Shifts in perspective from one author to the other are indicated with the particular author's first name included in brackets following the pronoun.Bryn Mawr and Haverford's Students as Teachers and Learners (SaLT) program coordinated by Alison Cook-Sather was on Reed College's radar as we set the foundation for our CTL.As part of a Mellon Foundation-funded pilot grant, Reed professors visited CTLs across the country, including Bryn Mawr and Haverford's Teaching and Learning Institute, to learn about best practices.During the 2013-2014 school year, a team of three professors, one staff member, and four students who were piloting a student-consultant program at Reed invited Alison Cook-Sather to visit in late February.Seeking input from an expert was critically important in developing our own student-consultant program at Reed.Alison met with me (Kathy), the incoming director of Reed's new CTL, during her visit.She also conducted a workshop for 26 faculty and staff on "Partnering with Students to Promote Active and Engaged Learning."Given the enthusiasm generated by her visit, the eightperson team conducting the pilot program hosted a follow-up luncheon panel during finals week that 30 staff and faculty attended.This panel provided faculty with details about Reed's
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".