Reflections on the Development of International Collaborative Writing Groups (ICWGs) about Teaching and Learning in Higher Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the development of a model for international collaborative writing groups (ICWGs) about teaching and learning in higher education, which began in geography in 1999 and was then transferred to the scholarship of teaching and learning community in 2012. It summarises some of the evidence which has emerged from research into the experience of participants in ICWGs. The paper ends with a few comments on the future development of the model. Dans cet article, l’auteur explore le développement d’un modèle de groupes internationaux de rédaction en collaboration portant sur l’enseignement et l’apprentissage dans l’enseignement supérieur, qui a vu le jour en géographie en 1999 et qui, plus tard, en 2012, a été transféré à la communauté de l’avancement des connaissances en enseignement et en apprentissage. L’auteur présente un résumé d’un certain nombre de preuves qui ont résulté de la recherche sur l’expérience vécue par les participants à ces groupes internationaux de rédaction. En conclusion, l’auteur présente quelques commentaires sur le développement futur de ce modèle.
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 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 | 0.031 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".