Feedback for teaching development: moving from a fixed to growth mindset
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Feedback is an expected and essential part of academic work; however, giving and receiving feedback often causes angst and distress, an aspect not often addressed. To foster conversations about feedback for teaching development, we developed an interactive event designed to explore and practice giving and receiving feedback. A mixed-methods pre-post-test design was implemented to examine and measure levels of distress when thinking about receiving feedback on teaching using (1) a distress thermometer, and (2) open-ended questions. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, means analysis, and thematic analysis of open text responses. Findings include an overall decrease in mean distress scores following the event and a shift in mindset between pre- and post-tests from fearing feedback to seeing feedback as an opportunity for growth and development. Higher education institutions are encouraged to provide opportunities to foster conversations about feedback and how it can be embraced to inform future teaching growth and development.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it