Fostering Students as Partners: A Faculty-wide Examination of Science Undergraduate and Graduate Students’ Perspectives of Pedagogical Partnerships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been a growing discourse within higher education to engage with students as partners and harness the strength of students and faculty working together. Engaging in student-faculty partnerships activities offers benefits to both students and faculty, yet there is less research on these practices within science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). The purpose of this study was to conduct a Faculty-wide investigation to identify the benefits and challenges of engaging in student-faculty partnerships activities within a Faculty of Science at a mid-sized university in Ontario, Canada. Using a mixed-method approach of surveys and semi-structured interviews with undergraduate and graduate students, we examined the types of student partnership activities existing within a Faculty of Science as well as gathered insights into students’ perspectives of the benefits and challenges they experience engaging in these activities. Collaborating with faculty on research projects, teaching assistantships, being a student leader in an organization with faculty guidance, and co-authoring manuscripts with faculty members were considered the most impactful partnerships activities. Students reported social, personal, and career development benefits from their involvement in student-faculty partnership activities. Common barriers included difficulties finding opportunities to engage in partnership activities, social barriers (e.g., financial stability), power imbalances, difficult working environments, and personal challenges. Implications for supporting student engagement and collaboration through advantageous student-faculty partnerships are discussed.
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 | 0.022 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".