Multidisciplinary Team-based Model for Faculty Supports in Online Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the experiences of three new online instructors supported by a multidisciplinary, team-based model of course development and how their experiences may transform their knowledge of teaching and learning. In-depth, individual interviews with instructors during the course development process provided insights into participants’ perspectives. Analysis reveals faculty reflected positively on the overall development process and that they intend to incorporate new understandings in future course design, suggesting that the model provides a solid foundation for online course development and faculty support. Based on a cross-case analysis using Cranton’s (2002) adaptations to transformative learning theory, findings indicated the importance of critical reflection and discourse during the course development process. Lastly, the need for development teams to acknowledge time-management concerns and to consider instructors as novice learners is recognized as an essential requirement to online course development. 
 
 La présente étude se penche sur l’expérience de trois nouveaux instructeurs en ligne utilisant un modèle d’élaboration de cours multidisciplinaire fondé sur le travail d’équipe. Nous nous demandons comment cette expérience est susceptible de transformer leur connaissance de l’enseignement et de l’apprentissage. Des entrevues individuelles approfondies avec les instructeurs pendant l’élaboration des cours nous ont permis d’observer le point de vue des participants. Selon notre analyse, les enseignants ont formulé des réflexions positives au sujet du processus d’élaboration dans son ensemble. Ils ont dit vouloir incorporer leurs nouvelles connaissances dans la conception de leurs cours à l’avenir, ce qui suggère que le modèle constitue une assise solide pour l’élaboration de cours en ligne et pour le soutien des enseignants. Fondés sur une analyse transversale faisant usage des adaptations de Cranton (2002) aux théories de l’apprentissage transformationnel, nos résultats mettent en relief l’importance de la réflexion critique et du discours dans le processus d’élaboration des cours. Enfin, nous prenons acte du fait que l’équipe d’élaboration des cours doit prendre en compte les préoccupations en matière de gestion du temps et doit considérer les instructeurs comme des apprenants débutants. Ce sont là des exigences essentielles pour l’élaboration de cours en ligne.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".