“Commitment to collaboration”: What students have to say about the values underpinning partnership practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Students as Partners (SaP) is about students and staff working together in teaching and learning. It is guided by the values of partnership. Knowing how students understand these values, particularly students new to the ideas and language of SaP, would enrich the scholarly conversation about partnership practices. To that end, our study asked students unfamiliar with SaP, “what values and attitudes do you think are necessary for students and academics to work as collaborative partners on teaching and learning?” We captured 173 written responses from students in a biomedical sciences degree program in an Australian university. Thematic analysis revealed four key values: respect, communication, understanding, and responsibility/commitment. We discuss the results through the lens of reciprocity and power, emergent consumerist culture in higher education, and the disciplinary context of science. In conclusion, we encourage dialogue between staff and students to illuminate and affirm the values of partnership that define SaP.
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 | 0.026 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| 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".