Postdoctoral scholars’ perceptions of a university teaching certificate program
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to explore postdoctoral scholars’ experiences and perceptions of a teaching certificate program and identify how they use the knowledge and skills developed through the certificate program to improve their teaching practices. Design/methodology/approach In this case study, the authors explored postdoctoral scholars’ experiences and perceptions of a teaching certificate using a multiple methods and data sources including documents, course evaluations, interviews and surveys. Findings The teaching certificate program helped postdocs learn the language and theory of teaching and learning in post-secondary education; practice specific strategies and develop confidence in how to teach; network with colleagues about teaching and learning; develop a reflective teaching practice; and contribute to the scholarship of teaching and learning. Practical implications The findings from this study will inform efforts to develop new or refine existing approaches to promote teaching and learning professional development opportunities for postdoctoral scholars. Originality/value This paper fulfills an identified need to study teaching and learning development for postdoctoral scholars.
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it