A Study of the Impact of Services of a University Teaching Centre on Teaching Practice: Changes and Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess the impact of educational development activities offered at our teaching Centre. To achieve this aim, the authors explored the impact of our services beyond the data generally gathered, namely those concerning participation, satisfaction with and knowledge acquired during a workshop. Data were collected through an on-line survey. The 115 participants in the study—lecturers, professors, and teaching assistants—represent about 20% of the 630 users who received services offered by the Centre during an 18-month period. Overall, the results tend to show that participants in the Centre’s activities have noted changes in their teaching and learning conceptions. Most of them have modified their teaching practice somewhat, and some even observed an improvement in their students’ learning. In addition, some say that they are more engaged in their educational development and in pedagogical activities at the institution. The survey allowed the authors to identify conditions that have facilitated change. Overall, this study has helped reveal the direct and indirect effects of the Centre’s educational development work on teaching, and it has provided the authors with useful data for decision making and practice improvement regarding the Centre’s services.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".