Leadership, SoTL, and Mentorship in a Teaching Scholars Community of Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Teaching Scholars Program and Community of Practice (TSCoP) develops educational leadership and research through enabling reflective conversations, purposeful listening, inclusive standards, and bold thinking about Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL). Teaching Scholars lead innovative practice in their own faculty given their shared commitment to improving teaching and learning in diverse post-secondary contexts through practice focused research. In this paper, we describe how the TSCoP is both formal in structure and design, and informal and emergent in facilitated interpersonal discussions. Ongoing conversations among diverse colleagues contribute to Teaching Scholars’ reflective and reflexive practice, help each educational leader gain new insights into their own studies and expand their vision for educational leadership in higher education. We use a SoTL framework to examine and position each of our research projects, and explore and make connections with educational leadership, mentorship and SoTL research.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.037 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".