Spaces of Belonging: Educational Researchers’ Experiences in an Online Community of Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. The Research on Education Committee of the Association of Canadian Occupational Therapy University Programs (ACOTUP) hosts an educational research community of practice (CoP). Occupational therapy educators across Canada meet through this CoP to network and advance research on education. While the literature has noted benefits of participating in a CoP for the professional development of occupational therapists, there is a paucity of studies focusing on educational researchers’ participation in a CoP. Purpose. This study aimed to examine CoP members’ perceptions of the value of, and barriers to, participation in an educational research CoP. Method. A mixed methods design, consisting of an online survey followed by focus groups, was employed to gain insight into participants’ perspectives and experiences of involvement in the CoP. Data were analyzed inductively and deductively using collaborative qualitative analysis. Findings. Members identified benefits of participation arising from networking and being a part of a supportive community. They described gaining new insights, social relationships, and inspiration to continue their pedagogical research. The data also highlighted limitations to participation and suggested ways to enhance meaningful engagement within a CoP. Conclusion. The CoP provides value to educators and researchers in supporting their pedagogical practices and professional careers. This knowledge could be leveraged to support its members and other CoPs.
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 | 0.044 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.043 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.035 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".