MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3178687499 · doi:10.24908/pceea.vi0.14861

FROM UNDERSTANDING TO ACTION: AN EXAMINATION OF TRANSFORMATIVE LEARNING IN ASYNCHRONOUS ONLINE EQUITY, DIVERSITY, AND INCLUSION TRAINING FOR FIRST- TIME TEACHING ASSISTANTS

2021· article· en· W3178687499 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Cori Hanson, Mikhail Burke

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Education and Employment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformative learningAsynchronous communicationFeelingInclusion (mineral)Equity (law)PedagogyPsychologyRehearsingDiversity (politics)Computer scienceSociologySocial psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To better support TAs in creating inclusive classrooms, three (3) online, asynchronous modules were developed and implemented to introduce first-time TAs to core concepts of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) - Foundational EDI Language, Power, Privilege, and Positionality and Interrupting Bias. Over 100 1st time TA completed each module, with 80-90 providing feedback on their experience upon completion. A preliminary review of this feedback highlighted three major themes: 1) building awareness and knowledge, 2) applying EDI concepts to teaching practice & identifying actions, and 3) feeling empowered to act. Overall, TAs expressed strong development of awareness and new knowledge of key concepts such as equity and positionality. Although TAs were also able to identify and state the value of applying these concepts to their teaching practice, many expressed the sentiment of still feeling uncomfortable to act within “real-life” situations. Future iterations of such training could seek to address this through structured opportunities for analysis and feedback of reflective responses.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.583
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicDisability Education and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207