Student-driven projects to promote equitable and justice-oriented teaching and learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autonomy, choice, and agency significantly motivate learning and growth (Deci & Ryan, 2012;Stenalt & Lassesen, 2022).They are also some of the principles and values that students-aspartners (SaP) programs have come to be known for, in addition to respect, responsibility, reciprocity, vulnerability, and collective accountability (Cates, et. al., 2018;Cook-Sather et al., 2014;Parker-Hill & Mathews, 2023).In this reflective essay, we present our SaP program as a model for an open-ended, autonomous approach to partnership, where students partner with staff who work in a center for teaching and learning (CTL) on projects they choose, with the ultimate goal of promoting more equitable and justice-oriented teaching and learning by creating and distributing lasting, publicly available resources.At American University's (AU) Center for Teaching, Research & Learning (CTRL), the CTRL student partners (American University, n.d.-a) were undergraduate students hired on an hourly part-time basis to work with CTRL staff to bring student voices and diverse perspectives to instructors, staff, and faculty at AU, helping to reconceptualize learning and teaching as a collaborative process.Each student partner planned and implemented pedagogical projects based on their own personal interests and experiences, which also led them to gain professional leadership skills while developing greater awareness as a learner and member of a campus community.The program prioritized diverse perspectives, recruiting students from all backgrounds and academic areas, to ensure wide representation of students' ideas and experiences.It was a distinctive type of SaP program where students partnered directly with CTRL staff and, through CTRL support, also formed partnerships with faculty and other relevant campus units such as the spiritual life center, academic integrity office, and the office that manages the general education curriculum.Through the program, 11 student partners created over 15 multimedia resources, individually and collaboratively, under the supervision of CTRL staff, housed on the CTRL website (American University, n.d.-b) for access by campus members and beyond.These resources were developed through their own personal reflection supplemented by surveys, interviews, focus groups, personal interactions, or town halls with students, faculty, and other campus partners.The resources spanned a variety of topics and formats, such as written guides for accessibility and anti-ableism, a photo journal on diversity in student identity at AU, information about supporting students during Ramadan, a podcast on how failure is perceived in the academic
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 | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
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".