From Assistants to Partners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Student-faculty partnerships are a growing practice in scholarship of teaching & learning (SoTL) projects. They can foster greater student engagement in higher education and help advance teaching & learning experiences. For graduate students, in particular those pursuing academic careers, such partnerships can offer opportunities for development of their professional identities as emerging SoTL scholars. In this article, we expand upon previous theorizations of partnerships to include the unique attributes of graduate student partnerships, such as in terms of longer timeframes, increased complexity, and long-term goals. Drawing on a two-year SoTL study, we present a three-layer framework characterizing key attributes for a successful graduate student-faculty partnership: 1) individual attributes in a partnership, 2) collective attributes for a partnership, and 3) outcomes of a partnership. The framework is grounded in literature and illustrative examples from our experiences as graduate students and faculty members working together in partnership with a SoTL project. This framework offers a structured mechanism to inform, create, and enhance the capacity of student-faculty partnerships in SoTL research.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".