Re-Envisioning Evaluation Pedagogy with a Community of Scholar Teachers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The] educator must be awake, critical, open to the world.It is an honor and a responsi bility to be a teacher in such dark times-and to imagine, and to act on what we imagine, what we believe ought to at last be" (Maxine Greene, 2005 , p. 80) ."It is crucial that critical thinkers who want to change [their] teaching practices talk to one another, collaborate in discussion that crosses boundaries and creates a space for intervention" (bell hooks, 1994 , p. 129).This special volume is motivated by our interest in the pedagogy of evaluation, in an ongoing concern with how best to teach evaluation to novice evaluators without reducing the field to a set of techniques.Ultimately our goal with this volume is to contribute to a dialogue about teaching evaluation and to build an active, engaged community of scholar teachers, what bell hooks (1994 ) might call "a community of learners" (p.153).Our goal is not to identify "best practices" in terms of teaching evaluation, a problematic term that implies some type of shared standard regardless of context (Calliou & Wesley-Esquimaux, 2015), but rather something more modest: to provide the opportunity for scholar teachers to share the diversity of their pedagogical practices, as well as their reflections on the chal lenges, opportunities, and complexities such teaching inevitably entails.We did not direct them about what to write; we simply asked that they share creative or innovative teaching practices that they have developed or used in the classroom, practices that they felt were pedagogically novel.The format of the practice note is ideal, as it provides the opportunity for authors to describe their innovative approaches to teaching and to critically refl ect on their experiences.Following this format, each of the articles remains under 3,000 words, with each providing a brief description of a teaching innovation, followed by key reflections on practice.Taken together, these articles highlight the multiple and diverse approaches, styles, locations, and contexts of teaching, whether enacted in a classroom, online, in professional workshops or through
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 | 0.078 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.032 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.026 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".