MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3010401206

Basics and Beyond: Faculty Development as a Professional Learning Journey

2020· article· en· W3010401206 on OpenAlexaff
Diane Salter, Shannon Rushe, Glen Jacobs

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvaluation of Teaching Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess (computing)Task (project management)Context (archaeology)Active learning (machine learning)Computer scienceCertificateLearning sciencesLearning cycleProfessional learning communityExperiential learningQualitative propertyPsychologyKnowledge managementMathematics educationArtificial intelligenceEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the implementation of the Basics and Beyond certificate program for faculty that models a learning-centered, task-based approach to active learning. Unique aspects of the program include: flexible entry; a student focused/conceptual change model; a task-based, learning-centered approach (tasks and feedback drive the learning process); and authentic assessment. Throughout this program, tasks and feedback drive the learning process so as to engage faculty in active rather than passive learning. Faculty have immediate opportunities to apply new strategies to their own teaching context and receive feedback. In this way, the journey itself is as important as the destination. A two-year research project assessed the uptake and impact of the program. Quantitative and qualitative analysis of data shows changes in participants’ attitudes and approaches to their teaching. The data suggests that our model promotes deep learning that resulted in attitudinal and behavioral changes in the faculty participating in the Basics and Beyond program. In the paper we describe unique features of our program, the design of the research project, and our findings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.240
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEvaluation of Teaching PracticesFrench-language works237,207