Educational Leadership in Teaching Excellence (EnLITE): A Peer-Driven Faculty Development Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Educational Leadership in Teaching Excellence (EnLITE) is an 11-month faculty development program at the University of Guelph, Ontario. Created and led by faculty members and educational developers, EnLITE is designed to engage participants in the principles, practice and theory of teaching and learning in higher education and to promote a learner-centred approach to teaching. Participants critically examine and discuss scholarly topics on teaching and learning and in their own disciplines; collaborate with one or more teaching mentors; engage in peer classroom observation; and participate in other teaching-related activities informed by their individual learning plans. Our objective was to determine the perceived impact of EnLITE on participants’ teaching-related practices and experiences. We collected pre-, post- and one-year post-program quantitative and qualitative survey responses from each of the 2014-2015, 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 EnLITE cohorts (N = 17 participants representing a variety of disciplines; 71% female). There were significant improvements in participants’ perceived teaching practices related to critical self-reflection (13% increase from pre- to one-year post-program), student engagement (+28.2%), collaborative learning (+31%) and learner-centred pedagogy (+22.9%, all p < 0.05). There was little to no change in use of technology, student assessment, leadership, participation in communities of practice, or dissemination of teaching-related scholarship. These results provide empirical evidence of the effectiveness of a peer-driven faculty development program in promoting a learning-centred approach to teaching. Future research should determine whether these changes translate into improved student learning, and whether such programs demonstrate longer term improvements in engagement in teaching-related leadership, communities of practice and dissemination.
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 | 0.018 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".