MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3100275337 · doi:10.22329/celt.v13i0.6008

Exploring the impact of a task-based faculty development certificate program.

2020· article· en· W3100275337 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Diane Salter, Shannon Rushe

Bibliographic record

VenueCollected Essays on Learning and Teaching · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvaluation of Teaching Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCertificatePedagogyLibrary scienceHumanitiesSociologyComputer scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Faculty Development programs aim to improve the knowledge, attitudes and behaviours of teaching faculty with the goal of enhancing the student learning environment. This article describes a two-year research project that explored the impact of a task-based faculty development certificate program. Attitudinal and behavioural changes were assessed by using both quantitative and qualitative measures. Participants’ approaches to teaching were measured by administration of an established pre- and post-participation inventory to provide quantitative data; qualitative analysis was conducted in a review of the written post-session tasks and reflection papers. Results suggest that participation in this certificate contributed to attitudinal and behavioural change with a shift from teacher focused/content-based approaches towards student focused/learner centered approaches to teaching. Les programmes de perfectionnement du corps professoral visent à améliorer la connaissance, l’attitude et le comportement des enseignants de manière à fournir aux étudiants un meilleur milieu d’apprentissage. Dans cet article, nous présentons un projet de recherche qui a duré deux ans et qui portait sur l’incidence d’un programme de certificat en perfectionnement du corps professoral axé sur les tâches. On évaluait les changements dans l’attitude et dans le comportement au moyen d’outils quantitatifs et qualitatifs. On prenait la mesure des approches enseignantes des participants au moyen de relevés an amont et en aval de la participation de manière à recueillir des données quantitatives. Quant à l’analyse qualitative, elle provenait du matériel écrit, soit les tâches d’après-séance et les travaux réflexifs. Les résultats indiquent que la participation à ce programme de certificat a engendré des changements dans l’attitude et le comportement des professeurs, lesquels sont passés d’une approche axée sur l’enseignant et le contenu à une approche axée sur l’étudiant ou l’apprenant.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.455
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.002 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCollected Essays on Learning and TeachingSame topicEvaluation of Teaching PracticesFrench-language works237,207