Research-Oriented University Instruction: The Research Skill Development Framework and Communities of Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To address higher education teaching efficacy, this chapter describes how the Research Skill Development (RSD) framework has been successfully applied to underpin professional development programs, namely through Communities of Practice (CoP) that explore research-thinking and a host of research-oriented teaching practices in two universities. These universities are, respectively, located on the Canadian prairie and in the Midwestern United States. In our professional roles, we provide professional development for university educators (UEs) across all disciplines and modalities. The RSD framework sparked interest amongst university educator participants by encouraging discourse on research thinking and by providing a common language to interrogate existing practice and to envision new teaching possibilities. The RSD framework catalysed and supported individual and group research thinking. In turn, university educators engaged with research-oriented teaching practices and publishing on teaching practice in the field of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL). Our findings indicated that lasting and meaningful change to research-thinking, in research-oriented teaching practices, and in SoTL, can be enabled through CoP that are underpinned and guided by the RSD framework. This chapter positions the RSD as a valuable and strategic tool for improving teaching while mitigating changing university agendas and concomitant challenges.
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 | 0.017 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".