Transdisciplinary or Pedagogically Distinct? Disciplinary Considerations for Teaching Certificates in Higher Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research provides an analysis of disciplines and disciplinary differences regarding the pedagogical value and content of post-graduate teaching certificates in higher education. Findings and recommendations are based upon a survey (N = 450) of department heads and doctoral students at Canadian research-focused universities. Participants were surveyed regarding their perceptions of the value of a credentialed teaching certificate for new academics seeking employment, as well as whether they believe the pedagogical knowledge and skills that typically comprise teaching certificates are valuable. Examining whether a strongly held disciplinary identity in more senior academics contributes to these differences, the survey results demonstrate significant differences between disciplines for the overall value and, in some areas, the content of teaching certificates, especially in department head responses. Relatedly, the open-ended survey comments show a deeply ingrained disciplinary identity, particularly for those holding the department head roles, which in turn reflected several participants’ perceptions of disciplinary teaching and learning knowledge and skills as holding superior value to generic, transdisciplinary programs. Recommendations include a renewed focus in educational development initiatives on linking transdisciplinary approaches to specific disciplinary contexts, further connecting overarching pedagogical theories to pedagogical content knowledge as it is translated in practice.
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 | 0.024 | 0.086 |
| 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 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".