Evaluating factors contributing to positive partnership work in a students-as-consultants partnership program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
McMaster University pioneered its Course Design/Delivery Consultants Program (CDDCP) in fall 2016. This program pairs an instructor partner who is teaching or preparing to teach a course with a student partner to obtain a student’s perspective on teaching and learning in their classroom. Although the CDDCP was based on Healey, Flint, and Harrington’s (2014) eight values of partnership, the contribution of other factors to its success was of interest. Participants’ experiences were analyzed using a framework informed by these values. Qualitative analysis showed that these values were reflected in participants’ experiences. Additionally, it was revealed that participants’ experiences in the CDDCP were enhanced by two additional factors: (a) prior experiences and experiences gained through CDDCP participation and (b) the extensive program structure of the CDDCP. These findings suggest that partnership programs involving students, instructors, and coordinators should (a) explicitly acknowledge the value of participants’ experiences and (b) facilitate face-to-face time among participants.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".