Teaching Matters: Developing Teaching Dossiers to Showcase Teaching Success and Competency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Throughout academia, the value of developing a strong CV is pervasive, while teaching dossiers can be overlooked. Furthermore, though partaking in a teaching assistantship is often required, graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) are not always mentored in developing teaching-related skills, or in understanding their importance in future career success. Considering that the skills GTAs gain through teaching contribute significantly to their development of discipline-based expertise and presentation skills (Seldin et al., 2010), and that faculty appointments typically include a 40% teaching load, it is apparent that this problem poses a major challenge. GTAs and junior faculty are often unsure how to articulate and qualify their teaching experience, and appointment committees seeking demonstrated skill and excellence can not find adequate evidence. Finally, in an era of increased focus on research skills and productivity over teaching, it is increasingly important to find ways to promote a campus culture that is supportive of teaching. Fortunately, well-defined teaching philosophies support students, faculty and administrators in viewing teaching as a valuable scholarly activity, and promote a deep commitment to teaching as well as professional and personal growth (Goodyear & Allchin, 1998).\nTeaching dossiers offer an opportunity to convey a teaching philosophy by cataloguing concrete evidence and accomplishments supporting the scope and quality of teaching experience (Sidhu, 2015). The development process itself is useful for promoting self-reflection and growth (Foote & Vermette, 2001; Sidhu, 2015), as well as enhancing the quality of teaching (Sidhu, 2015), while the final product is a necessary portion of academic hiring/promotion decisions (Seldin et al., 2010). This workshop seeks to support participants in (1) understanding the importance of teaching and creating early career dossiers (Foote and Vermette, 2001); and (2) outlining teaching dossier content and structure (Foote and Vermette, 2001; Seldin, Miller, and Seldin, 2010; Sidhu, 2015) while focusing on critical reflective activities (Sidhu, 2015)to promote dossier content generation.
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 | 0.016 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.010 |
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".