Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction As was discussed in Chapter 1, the definition of scholarship has, since the work of Boyer (1990), moved from a narrow focus on research to incorporate the full scope of academic work; furthermore, the literature review also revealed tantalizing glimpses of how librarians are leaving their university library to become embedded in the workflows of academic departments. This chapter explores these two themes further by examining the impact of the digital on the scholarship of teaching and uses a case study of the University Library and Centre for Education Futures (CEF) at the University of Western Australia (UWA). The case study also explores how the transferable skills and expertise of librarians can be successfully extended in the development of digital learning and teaching design in a campus-based researchintensive university. It describes the collaborative partnership which incorporates services to academic staff and students and brings together two areas – library and education – in a practical and impactful approach to achieving the University's Education Futures Vision. Finally, the case study demonstrates how transferable skills and knowledge have allowed librarians to expand their roles within and beyond the Library, and have even led to library professionals changing career paths successfully. More specifically, this chapter considers the following aspects of the partnership to demonstrate how librarians have a key role to play at the nexus of education technologies, learning design and scholarship in partnership with the CEF. It will examine how librarians are: • experiencing change to their traditional roles • contributing to learning design initiatives • facilitating the implementation of a learning management system • becoming embedded in the teaching and learning workflows of the CEF. Looking towards the future of education at UWA In 2012, following extensive stakeholder engagement, a UWA Leading Transformation Program group developed the ‘University of Western Australia Educational Principles’ with a focus on learning and teaching. The aim was to enable UWA to be a world leader in education and provide students with an exceptional, future-proofed, sustainable, world-class educational experience.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.014 |
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".