A Common Book: A Novel Approach to Teaching and Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most research on common book programs focuses on student outcomes. This paper presents a study about the impact of a common book program on teaching and learning practices at a small mainly undergraduate university. This study consists of two phases. In Phase 1, we surveyed faculty members (N= 32, a response rate of 21.3%), about the influence of the program on teaching practices and dialogue with colleagues as well as their perceptions of the program’s impact on student learning. In Phase 2, we conducted interviews with business faculty, who were early program adopters (N=8). Most respondents believed that students benefited from the program. Faculty members perceived the common book program as a tool that facilitated course content and enhanced students’ literacy. While responses were mixed about the perceived impact on teaching practices, faculty members interviewed felt that the common book program created opportunities for discussion about teaching and learning. La majorité des recherches menées sur les programmes de livre commun se concentrent sur les résultats des étudiants. Cet article présente une étude qui a porté sur l’impact d’un programme de livre commun sur les pratiques pédagogiques dans une petite université offrant principalement des études de premier cycle. Cette étude s’est déroulée en deux phases. Au cours de la Phase I, nous avons mené une enquête auprès de professeurs (N = 32, avec un taux de réponse de 21,3 %) concernant l’influence du programme sur les pratiques d’enseignement et le dialogue avec les collègues, ainsi que concernant leurs perceptions de l’impact du programme sur l’apprentissage des étudiants. Au cours de la Phase II, nous avons mené des entrevues avec des professeurs d’administration des affaires qui avaient adopté le programme dès sa phase initiale (N = 8). La plupart des répondants ont déclaré que selon eux, les étudiants avaient bénéficié du programme. Les professeurs ont considéré le programme de livre commun comme un outil qui simplifie le contenu du cours et améliore l’alphabétisation des étudiants. Bien que les réponses aient été variées en ce qui concerne la perception de l’impact sur les pratiques d’enseignement, les professeurs interrogés ont indiqué que selon eux, le programme de livre commun avait créé des occasions de discussion sur l’enseignement et l’apprentissage.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".