Perspective of Teaching in University Professors: Case Study in A Chilean University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study aims to critically analyse university teaching from the perspective of the actors themselves, since the exercise of teaching allows the teacher to look at their pedagogical practice, interpret it, and recreate it, also turning it into a source of learning from a perspective of change and innovation. In methodological terms, the study is based on the interpretive paradigm which is intended to understand how teachers mean the teaching process, therefore, the methodology option is qualitative through the case study. The data have been obtained through focus groups, with the participation of 16 university professors, a question that allowed the emergence of the discourse of the investigated subjects referring to their experience in the exercise of university teaching. The results point to the importance of didactics in the learning process, the establishment of good personal relationships with their students, the deep mastery of the content of the discipline taught by the teacher, the adequate theory-practice relationship, and the primary concern for the learning in their classrooms, as factors that stand out in those teachers who transcend in the lives of their students. They also open up the opportunity for a series of questions, many of them about the role of university teachers in their capacity as trainers of trainers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".