MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416383219 · doi:10.22329/jtl.v19i5.10658

Educating in Uncertainty: Research on Teaching and Learning as a Horizon for Universities in the 21st Century

2025· article· en· W4416383219 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ricardo García-Hormazábal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Teaching and Learning · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvaluation of Teaching Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipCurriculumScholarship of Teaching and LearningNetworked learningHigher educationMisinformationProfessional learning communityLearning sciencesNexus (standard)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The twenty-first-century university faces unprecedented complexity, uncertainty, and diversity, driven by social, technological, and cultural transformations that demand the preparation of professionals capable of addressing both global and local challenges. This article examines how the integration of research on teaching and learning can serve as a strategic axis for higher education institutions to respond to these challenges. Adopting a conceptual and analytical approach, this study synthesizes evidence from the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) and the Science of Learning to explore their complementary roles in shaping effective pedagogical practices. The findings indicate that research-informed teaching strengthens reflective competencies, promotes pedagogical innovation, and supports teachers’ professional development, while also informing curriculum design and fostering inclusive, adaptive, and collaborative learning environments. For students, this integration leads to deep and meaningful learning, fostering critical thinking, collaboration, and self-regulation skills. The significance of these results lies in the fact that aligning evidence-based teaching and learning strategies with institutional goals enables the university to operate as a dynamic ecosystem where research informs practice and learning, in turn enriching inquiry. This approach safeguards against misinformation and shallow learning, prepares graduates to navigate complex professional and social realities, and positions the university as a resilient and socially relevant model.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.075
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.389
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0750.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.386 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Teaching and LearningSame topicEvaluation of Teaching PracticesFrench-language works237,207