Foundations of the DEFT Project: tertiary educators Developing Expertise Fostering Thinking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We describe the rationale, creation, and activity of a long-term co-constructed voluntary professional development initiative for tertiary educators. This is a Community of Practice (CoP) formed to investigate “thinking” as a topic which may be explicitly taught. The aim of this paper is to share the value of this CoP in one context and insights into how similar approaches may be useful to other tertiary educators. The project has run for a year to date, involving a small but growing collective of tertiary educators, with members from one Canadian and several Australian Universities. Our methodology is participatory: we regularly meet, reflect, and record our reflections. Our records contain data relating to our motivation, our insights, and the impact of these upon our choices in our teaching practices. In particular, our rationale includes the mutual desire to invest in developing understanding of our teaching challenges, to enable us to create thoughtful teaching approaches fit for our purposes and contexts. Hence, the central focus of our CoP is the Development of our Expertise in Fostering Thinking (DEFT). This focus has illuminated gaps in existing scholarly literature pertaining to communal development of theory, personal development of schemata, capacity for reflexivity, and instantiation in our disciplines. Opportunities and risks associated with our other sources of professional learning are identified and discussed. We elaborate on a double-layered approach, in which we explore the construction of our own schemata as a precursor to helping students build their schemata as a foundation for their own understanding, and the role of flexible, critical, and creative thinking on our part. We utilise the scholarship of expertise, frequently returning to such questions as “How do we know what our students are thinking?” Insights gleaned from our reflections are shared, and recommendations are presented on the formation of similar projects.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".