Faculty beliefs and the need for teaching improvement: a conceptual replication study
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores faculty beliefs about teaching and learning in different institutional settings and over time. This study surveyed faculty at two Canadian universities, one research-intensive, the other teaching-intensive, using a conceptual replication of a survey originally administered in 1976. Some results differ from the original survey, but most striking are the similarities. While much has changed in higher education over the last 40+ years, including demographic compositions at Canadian universities, the findings reveal the majority of faculty continue to believe: their teaching is very good or outstanding; it is difficult to reward good teaching; the responsibility for teaching quality rests with individual instructors; the most important motivator for teaching improvement is personal satisfaction; the most important ways to improve teaching are through updating course materials and reducing class sizes. These results provide further insights into why changes to teaching beliefs and in turn, teaching practices, are difficult to achieve.
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 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 | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it