Re-imagining A Learning Program For New Faculty: An Opportunity To Enhance Institutional Capacity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This case study of one Ontario, mid-sized community college explores collaborative leadership processes and practices to shift the structure and conceptualization of a learning program for newly hired faculty members from a prescribed, linear model to a self-directed, multi-modal program. Examining organizational structure, institutional culture, adult learning theory, and systems thinking, the question, how can a professional development program best support new faculty in their teaching practice and new role, is addressed. The Change Path Model, grassroots and relational leadership practices are strategies utilized to guide the process for change. A distributed leadership approach is advocated to share decision making, embrace a new approach to an existing program and build institutional capacity. Democratic principles of inclusion, equity and empowerment underpin a dialogic approach to shifting mindsets to enact change. Building on the literature supporting socially constructed knowledge, communities of practice and inquiry, principles of andragogy, and universal design for learning, are proposed as mechanisms to reimagine the current program while simultaneously build institutional capacity and community. This organizational improvement plan proposes a reimagined vision to an existing program, that gives new faculty agency over their learning, while managing growth, meeting institutional obligations, and remaining accountable.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".