Instructor Reflections from a Graduate-level Course on STEM Education Research and Practice
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
The University of Guelph has piloted a graduate-level course on STEM Education. The course sought to balance research and practice lenses, including learning outcomes and activities related to learning theories, epistemologies, research methodologies, and an embedded Instructional Skills Workshop. The course was intentionally designed to target affective learning domains, challenging learner beliefs and values about teaching and research. The aim is to share critical reflections from the co-instructors following the first offering of the course, with a focus on philosophical approaches, expectations, student perceptions, threshold concepts, and the negotiation of meaning. Key themes identified in both reflections included: exploration, transformation, climate & community and logistics & operations. These themes illustrate learning as a process, depending on the openness of learners to question pre-existing beliefs, and re-build existing mental models. The resulting transformation is aided by collaboratively learning with others, where different perspectives and values help students uncover their own.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it