Undergraduate Students as Partners in a Writing Course: A Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Engaging undergraduate students and faculty as partners in learning and teaching is arguably one of the most important and flourishing trends higher education in the 21st century, particularly in the UK, North America, Australia, and New Zealand. Students as partners is a concept that intersects with other major teaching and learning topics, such as student engagement, equity, decolonization of higher education, assessment, and career preparation. In this context, the aim of this presentation is to report on a case study, where four undergraduate students (hired as undergraduate research students) and a faculty/program coordinator collaborated in the fall of 2020 to review and re-design the curriculum of English A02 (Critical Writing about Literature), a foundational course in the English program at the University of Toronto Scarborough. This presentation will serve as a platform for these students and faculty to share the logistics of this partnership, its successes, challenges, future prospects, and possible recommendations for faculty and students who may partake similar projects in the future. Keywords: Students as Partners (SaP), writing, curriculum, decolonization
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 | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".