Respect, reciprocity, and responsibility: Principles for successful partnerships and sustainable communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this reflection is to explore the transformation each of us experienced through our pedagogical partnership.We begin with a description of our undergraduate experiences and the contrasting pedagogical approach Brenda uses today.Next, we explore our partnership, one which led Brenda to the implementation of a negotiated curriculum.Next, Brenda will outline the process of negotiation that she undertakes with her sustainability students.Finally, we reflect on the principles of respect, reciprocity, and responsibility necessary for building sustainable communities as well as effective partnerships within and beyond the classroom. OUR EDUCATION AND CURRENT CONTEXT BrendaMy 1980s undergraduate experience looked very traditional.I sat at a desk and listened while an authoritative professor decided what the class needed to know.I did well in that environment, but I was not a partner in the learning process.Teaching was something done to me, not with me.Learning was relegated to the classroom rather than integrated with my life beyond. CarolineAs a student today, my educational experience looks very similar to Brenda's.In the typical classroom environment, the learning material is provided and notes are taken.Consequently, most of my learning happens on my own outside of the classroom without collaboration with the instructor.There are times when I see efforts to explore the student experience, such as end-of-semester feedback surveys.But more often than not, these surveys are followed by little change.This leaves these efforts feeling more performative than authentic. BrendaToday, when I tell colleagues I partner with students to co-create the curriculum in my introductory sustainability classroom, the typical response from peers is skepticism.A common comment I hear is, "That works in your classroom, but it wouldn't work in mine.I have content that I have to cover."My colleagues' responses reflect the educational paradigm they probably experienced during their undergraduate education.That paradigm
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".