Student-Faculty Partnership as a Foundation for Authentic Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To understand the nature of student-faculty partnerships we began to explore the literature on students and educators as pedagogical partners (Cook-Sather, Bovill, & Felten, 2011). What emerged was a strong alignment between our transformational partnership as co-teachers in higher education and how our co-teaching practice has evolved to influence our relationships with students. Reflecting on our co-teaching practice has created a space for us to cross the threshold and embrace ‘radical collegiality’ (Fielding, 1999); not only through engaging as full faculty partners but transforming our thinking about the nature of partnership with students (Bovill, Cook-Sather, & Felten, 2011; Cook-Sather, 2014). Students became active partners in pedagogical planning surrounding a teaching philosophy assignment which revealed students’ understanding of the significance of authentic partnership. Understanding the education process as a partnership between students and educators compels us to continue fostering a brave space for both students and ourselves to risk and engage in courageous change, growth, and learning (Cook-Sather, 2016).
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 | 0.023 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.039 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".