MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362600840 · doi:10.3998/tia.3492

Strategic planning tools for educational developers supporting SoTL cultures and programs at their institutions

2023· article· en· W4362600840 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTo improve the academy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvaluation of Teaching Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorksheetScholarship of Teaching and LearningComputer scienceInstitutionManagementSociologyMathematics educationPedagogyPsychologyTeaching methodSocial scienceTeaching and learning center

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As centers for teaching and learning increasingly offer support and leadership for the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) at their institutions, educational developers need better tools to plan their SoTL programming. This article shares the work of a regional network of educational developers across six institutions in Virginia, who aimed to enhance SoTL offerings within and across their institutions. While SoTL tools and models for individual instructors proliferate, this community of practice noted a gap in support for developers doing more institution-level planning. Through their collaboration, they developed two tools for planning and launching institution-level SoTL programs: the SoTL Strategic Planning Worksheet and the SoTL Program Taxonomy. This article describes the development of these tools and assesses their implications for educational development practice.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.831
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.416
GPT teacher head0.526
Teacher spread0.111 · 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