Success in Student-Faculty/Staff SoTL Partnerships: Motivations, Challenges, Power, and Definitions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Partnerships with students are considered one of the principles of good Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) practice. However, not all partnerships are equally successful. What characteristics are common to successful partnerships and what preparatory elements can lead toward more successful partnerships? In this article, our team of graduate students, educational developers, and faculty members engage in detailed self-reflection on our past and ongoing SoTL projects as an inquiry into what it means to be in a successful student-faculty/staff partnership. Using thematic analysis, we identify and describe four distinct domains that can shape partnerships: (1) motivations to participate, (2) challenges, (3) power, and (4) definitions of success. The article concludes with a set of questions to stimulate initial and ongoing conversations between partners to guide new partnerships in defining the parameters for success in their proposed collaboration. Les partenariats avec les étudiants sont considérés comme l’un des principes de bonne pratique de l’Avancement des connaissances en enseignement et en apprentissage (ACEA). Toutefois, tous les partenariats ne connaissent pas le même succès. Quelles sont les caractéristiques communes des partenariats réussis et quels sont les éléments préparatoires qui peuvent aboutir à des partenariats mieux réussis? Dans cet article, notre groupe, consistant d’étudiants de cycles supérieurs, de conseillers pédagogiques et de professeurs, se lance dans une auto-réflexion détaillée sur nos projets passés et présents en ACEA qui constitue une enquête sur ce que cela signifie de faire partie d’un partenariat réussi entre étudiants, professeurs et membres du personnel. Par le biais de l’analyse thématique, nous identifions et décrivons quatre domaines distincts qui façonnent les partenariats : 1) la motivation à participer, 2) les défis, 3) le pouvoir et 4) les définitions de la réussite. En conclusion, nous posons un groupe de questions pour stimuler les conversations initiales et continues entre les divers partenaires afin de guider les nouveaux partenariats à définir les paramètres menant à la réussite dans leur collaboration proposée.
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 | 0.067 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.037 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".