MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Leading Up in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

2017· article· en· W2717269601 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Janice Miller‐Young, Catherine Anderson, Deborah Kiceniuk, Julie Mooney, Jessica Riddell, Alice Schmidt Hanbidge, Veronica Ward, Maureen Wideman, Nancy Chick

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvaluation of Teaching Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of the Fraser ValleyUniversity of GuelphUniversity of CalgaryBishop's UniversityDalhousie UniversityUniversity of WaterlooMount Royal UniversityMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipContext (archaeology)SociologyHumanitiesScholarship of Teaching and LearningPolitical sciencePedagogyPhilosophyTeaching method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) scholars, including those who are not in formal positions of leadership, are uniquely positioned to engage in leadership activities that can grow the field, influence their colleagues, and effect change in their local contexts as well as in institutional, disciplinary, and the broader Canadian contexts. Drawing upon the existing SoTL literature and our own diverse experiences, we propose a framework that describes institutional contexts in terms of local SoTL activity (microcultures) and administrative support (macro-level) and use it to describe the many ways that SoTL scholars can and do “lead up” to effect change depending on their own context. We conclude by inviting scholars to consider, reflect upon, and experiment with their leadership activities, not only for their own professional growth but also to contribute to the literature in this area. Les professeurs qui font des recherches dans le domaine de l’avancement des connaissances en enseignement et en apprentissage (ACEA), y compris ceux qui n’occupent pas un poste de leadership formel, occupent une position unique pour s’engager dans des activités de leadership qui peuvent faire avancer le domaine, influencer leurs collègues et effectuer des changements dans leurs contextes locaux ainsi que dans les contextes plus vastes de leur établissement, de leur discipline et du contexte canadien en général. En nous appuyant sur la documentation déjà publiée en ACEA et sur nos diverses expériences personnelles, nous proposons un cadre qui décrit les contextes institutionnels en termes d’activités d’ACEA locales (micro-cultures) et de soutien administratif (niveau macro) que nous utilisons pour décrire les diverses manières dont les chercheurs en ACEA peuvent en arriver à effectuer des changements selon leur propre contexte. En conclusion, nous invitons les chercheurs à prendre en considération leurs activités de leadership, à y réfléchir et à faire des expériences, non seulement pour leur propre croissance professionnelle mais également pour contribuer à la documentation dans ce domaine.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0250.070
Scholarly communication0.0290.017
Open science0.0020.017
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.176
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and LearningSame topicEvaluation of Teaching PracticesFrench-language works237,207