Offering Collaborative Opportunities as a Pathway to Scholarship of Teaching & Learning Research Participation
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 Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) is the systematic study of teaching and learning and the public dissemination of findings. Despite the numerous benefits of SoTL at multiple levels, there are significant challenges to participation, particularly within the Canadian college and polytechnic context. Common barriers that contribute to lower SoTL participation in the Canadian college and polytechnic context include a lack of faculty time for scholarly activities, institutional culture and support for scholarly activities, and limited research experience among faculty members. Through a brief introduction to the literature on this topic and our own experience running a group SoTL project, we aim to shine a light on how offering collaborative opportunities can improve scholarly participation at multiple levels of engagement as well as contribute to the formation of a SoTL community of practice. By embracing a collective approach to SoTL, educators can not only develop professionally but also foster a scholarly community that encourages innovation and improves learning outcomes across diverse educational contexts.
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 | 0.017 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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