MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Examining the Focus of SoTL Literature—Teaching and Learning?

2021· article· en· W3135748878 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTeaching & Learning Inquiry The ISSOTL Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvaluation of Teaching Practices
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarship of Teaching and LearningScholarshipScope (computer science)Teaching and learning centerFocus (optics)Field (mathematics)PedagogySociologyTeaching methodMathematics educationPsychologyComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) claims to focus on student learning, some have argued that SoTL studies often adopt a narrow view of learning and focus more on teaching than on learning. In this paper, we explore whether teaching is the primary focus of recent articles published from 2013-2017 in three international, self-identified SoTL journals: Teaching and Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal (TLI), The International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (ijSOTL), and The Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (JoSoTL). Based on our analysis of the 299 empirical articles, we argue that they portray SoTL as a field focused primarily on teacher activity rather than student learning, despite efforts to broaden its scope.

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 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)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.632
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0130.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.012
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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.293 · 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