MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3100120636 · doi:10.22329/celt.v13i0.6017

A collaborative approach to developing transferable teaching skills among student workshop facilitators

2020· article· en· W3100120636 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Elizabeth Ismail, Laura Chittle

Bibliographic record

VenueCollected Essays on Learning and Teaching · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReflective Practices in Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPedagogyPsychologyMedical educationLibrary scienceComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The teaching assistant program at the University of Windsor facilitates opportunities for students to develop leadership capacity, creativity, and pedagogical knowledge. This study explored the skills that student workshop facilitators were developing and/or enhancing, and how these skills might be used outside of teaching-related duties. Data from former student workshop facilitators were collected through an online survey (n = 15) and semi-structured interviews (n = 6). The results indicated that participants developed a range of teaching-related skills through leading teaching and learning workshops. The knowledge and skills facilitators garnered often resulted in them being perceived as teaching and learning leaders amongst their peers. Further, participants emphasized that leading workshops provided a unique opportunity to practice, increased their confidence, and led them to apply their skills in academic and non-academic endeavours.
 
 Le programme d’assistanat d’enseignement de l’Université de Windsor aide les étudiants à acquérir des compétences en matière de leadership, de créativité et de connaissances pédagogiques. Dans notre étude, nous nous penchons sur les compétences que les étudiants animateurs d’ateliers ont assimilées ou affinées et nous nous demandons comment ces acquis peuvent être transposés à d’autres tâches en dehors de l’enseignement. Au moyen d’un sondage en ligne (n = 15) et d’entrevues semi-structurées (n = 6), nous avons recueilli les données provenant d’étudiants ayant animé des ateliers. Les résultats indiquent que les répondants ont développé diverses compétences liées à l’enseignement en animant des ateliers portant sur l’apprentissage et sur l’enseignement. Grâce aux connaissances et aux compétences acquises, les animateurs étaient souvent considérés par leurs pairs comme des leaders en matière d’apprentissage et d’enseignement. De plus, les répondants ont souligné le fait que l’animation d’atelier leur avait donné l’occasion d’exercer leur pratique, de gagner en confiance et d’appliquer leurs compétences en contexte universitaire et non universitaire.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.339
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCollected Essays on Learning and TeachingSame topicReflective Practices in EducationFrench-language works237,207