<i>Planning for Effective Faculty Development: Using Adult Learning Strategies</i> by Patricia A. Lawler & Kathleen P. King
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary audience for this text, the authors argue, are "faculty development practitioners and other professional adult educators who are responsible for developing and presenting faculty development initiatives" (p.x).They go on to suggest that the book "can also serve as a text for graduate education courses in faculty, staff, or professional development" (p.xi).Although inexperienced faculty developers in particular may indeed find the text useful, I am less certain that it makes a good text for a graduate course.My reasons become clear below.On p. 91 the authors summarize clearly what they believe is their greatest contribution: "The goal of this book is to enhance the effectiveness of faculty development through thoughtful and systematic planning based on the theories of adult learning."Although this is indeed a valuable idea, it is perhaps not quite as innovative as the authors suggest.As early as 1983 Geis and Smith explored what it might mean for the practice of faculty development "if Professors are Adult Learners," and over the past few
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".