MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886991850 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.7335

An Overview of the Teaching Assistant Consultant Program for Developing Competency in Novice Engineering Graduate Teaching Assistants

2017· article· en· W2886991850 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Kush Bubbar, Alexandros Dimopoulos, Cynthia Korpan, Peter Wild

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReflective Practices in Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsDeliverableTeaching assistantCore competencyEngineering managementEngineering educationComputer scienceGraduate studentsMedical educationEngineeringSystems engineeringManagementMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As engineering education strives to progress towards a student-centric learning model, a competency gap with future educators becomes more apparent. In particular, the expectation of graduate student teaching assistants (GTAs) in attaining teaching competency to support this dynamic learning environment, often without sufficient training, is unrealistic.In the following paper, we present an implementation of the flexible Teaching Assistant Consultant (TAC) program, which serves to support the development of novice GTA competencies using a discipline-specific model with emphasis on assisting the unique challenges of international teaching assistants.We introduce the specific role of the TAC in terms of core principles and deliverables, and the strategic structure of the campus wide program at the University of Victoria. We conclude by detailing the specific implementation of the program in engineering by illustrating the role and deliverables of the engineering TAC.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.005

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.336 · 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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicReflective Practices in EducationFrench-language works237,207