Drawing on the Principles of SoTL to Illuminate a Path Forward for the Scholarship of Educational Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been growing discourse related to the importance of the scholarship of educational development (SoED), but less discussion related to clearly defining principles for guiding engagement in SoED or contextualizing SoED within literature related to the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL). Expanding upon Felten’s (2013) principles for SoTL, as well as evolving discourse related to principles of educational development (e.g., Gibbs, 2013; Taylor & Rege Colet, 2010; Timmermans, 2014), this paper presents seven principles for SoED. Two additional principles (transforming practice and reflective practice) are added to Felten’s principles to further contextualize SoED in relation to educational development and SoTL. Three cases are provided to illustrate educational development, SoTL, and SoED within the context of these principles. The interrelationships between educational development, SoTL, and SoED are complex. While SoED offers many opportunities for further legitimizing the individual and collective practices in educational development, it also presents many additional tensions and questions for further research. On parle de plus en plus de l’importance de l’avancement des connaissances en pédagogie (ACP), mais on parle moins d’une définition claire des principes qui guident l’engagement en ACP ou de la contextualisation de l’ACP dans les publications de la recherche consacrée à l’avancement des connaissances en enseignement et en apprentissage (ACEA). Pour élargir la portée des principes pour l’ACEA présentés par Felten (2013), ainsi que celle du discours évolutif lié aux principes de la pédagogie (voir Gibbs, 2013; Taylor & Rege Colet, 2010; Timmermans, 2014), cet article présente sept principes pour l’ACP. Deux principes supplémentaires (transformation de la pratique et pratique réflective) sont ajoutés aux principes de Felten afin de contextualiser davantage l’ACP par rapport à la pédagogie et à l’ACEA. Trois cas sont présentés pour illustrer la pédagogie, l’ACEA et l’ACP dans le contexte de ces principes. Les relations entre la pédagogie, l’ACEA et l’ACP sont complexes. Alors que l’ACP offre de nombreuses possibilités pour rendre plus légitimes les pratiques individuelles et collectives en pédagogie, il présente également de nombreuses tensions et des questions supplémentaires qui pourront faire l’objet de davantage de recherche.
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 | 0.027 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.077 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".