Graduate Student Perspectives of Interdisciplinary and Disciplinary Programming for Teaching Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interdisciplinary (i.e., university-wide programming) and disciplinary (i.e., programming open to participants from one college or department) teaching development programs for graduate students have been used for many years in higher education. Currently, research on the benefits of these teaching models remains scant in terms of a contextualized understanding, and empirical studies are needed. The purpose of this study was to determine graduate students’ perspectives related to interdisciplinary and disciplinary teaching and learning experiences. Two online surveys were used: a quantitative survey and a qualitative follow-up survey. Three participatory focus groups were also conducted to allow for further in-depth exploration in both an interdisciplinary and disciplinary group setting that represented seven distinct colleges. Statistical and thematic analyses were conducted with survey responses, and thematic analyses were conducted on focus group data. Similar themes emerged from the survey and focus group data identifying perceived benefits of participation in either interdisciplinary or disciplinary teaching development. Respondents’ perceived benefits were related to: (a) becoming a better teacher; (b) social learning; and (c) that while the perceived benefits of the models vary, the outcomes of both experiences are shared. The lived experiences of these graduate students expand the characterization of interdisciplinary and disciplinary programming. This study points to the need for graduate student programs—specifically teaching development offered by educational development units—to provide both interdisciplinary and disciplinary teaching development opportunities that achieve a blend of benefits for learners. Les programmes interdisciplinaires (c’est-à-dire les programmes offerts à l’échelle de l’université) et disciplinaires (c’est-à-dire ceux qui sont ouverts aux participants d’un collège ou d’un département) de perfectionnement de l’enseignement pour étudiants de cycle supérieur existent depuis de nombreuses années en enseignement supérieur. À l’heure actuelle, la recherche sur les avantages de ces modèles d’enseignement reste très incomplète en matière de compréhension contextualisée et il y a grand besoin de mener des études empiriques. Le but de cette étude était de déterminer les perspectives des étudiants de cycle supérieur liées aux expériences d’enseignement et d’apprentissage interdisciplinaires et disciplinaires. Deux sondages en ligne ont été employés : un sondage quantitatif et un sondage de suivi qualitatif. Également, trois groupes de discussion participatifs ont été organisés afin d’explorer plus profondément les contextes des groupes interdisciplinaires et disciplinaires qui représentaient sept collèges distincts. Des analyses statistiques et thématiques ont été effectuées avec les réponses aux sondages et des analyses thématiques ont été effectuées sur les données recueillies des groupes de discussion. Des thèmes semblables se sont dégagés des sondages et des données recueillies des groupes de discussion. Ces thèmes identifiaient les avantages perçus de la participation dans le perfectionnement de l’enseignement tant interdisciplinaire que disciplinaire. Les répondants ont perçu les avantages suivants : (a) possibilité de devenir de meilleurs enseignants; (b) apprentissage social; et (c) bien que les avantages perçus de chaque modèle varient, les résultats des deux expériences sont semblables. Les expériences vécues de ces étudiants de cycle supérieur élargissent la caractérisation des programmes interdisciplinaires et disciplinaires. Cette étude souligne la nécessité que les programmes pour étudiants de cycle supérieur – spécifiquement les programmes de perfectionnement de l’enseignement offerts dans le cadre d’unités de pédagogie – doivent offrir des occasions de perfectionnement de l’enseignement à la fois interdisciplinaires et disciplinaires pour que les apprenants tirent des deux modèles un mélange d’avantages.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".