Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents analysis of evidence on the ways in which the connection between technology and scholarship supported a Community of Practice (CoP) for instructors in a Faculty of Education in Canada. The goal is to reflect on different types of pedagogical practices of CoP members. We discuss the ways in which both social learning and online technology were harnessed to support professional learning. We based the analysis on notions of collective learning and Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory that inform studies on professional development. The main unit of analysis is the learning community (Wenger, 1998). CoP members jointly analyzed data from aggregated questionnaires, anonymized notes, and audio and textual recordings of selected meetings, resources archived and follow-up reflection by CoP members. The results showed that four pedagogies were most highly ascribed by CoP members: Culturally Responsive Pedagogies (11.63%; e.g., caring pedagogies, Healing, Global Transformative and Reconciliatory pedagogies), Hands-on and Digital Pedagogies (11.63%; e.g., Maker Education and Materiality pedagogies), Story Telling Pedagogies (13.95%; e.g., Deep, Imaginative, Surprise, Participatory, Story Telling and Learners as Curriculum Makers pedagogies), and 21st Century Teaching (16.28%; e.g., Blended, Digital and Online pedagogies). The findings provide evidence that there is potential in harnessing digital technology for social learning environments within the context of faculty responding to changing higher education institutional factors, including those motivated by the neoliberal management culture.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".