MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Student Learning and Conference Design: The Case of Interdisciplinary / Multidisciplinary Woolf

2015· article· en· W585873357 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Ann M. Martin, Kathryn J. Holland, Taylor Witiw

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicInterdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsMacEwan UniversityUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersMacEwan UniversityUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsDisciplineApprenticeshipScholarshipSociologyMultidisciplinary approachPedagogyProfessionalizationContext (archaeology)Transformative learningEngineering ethicsHumanitiesPolitical scienceSocial scienceEngineeringArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Academic conferences are events geared to disciplinary specialization, and much of the SoTL literature regarding scholarly gatherings addresses their benefits for graduate student apprenticeship. In our organization of the 22nd Annual International Conference on Virginia Woolf, we explored other forms of pedagogy to augment an academic professionalization approach. In particular, we created opportunities for cross-disciplinary teaching and learning, which have particular potential for Humanities students who may end up applying their discipline-specific training in non-academic contexts and in unexpected ways. This paper explores the possibilities and limitations of the cross-disciplinary initiatives that we developed for Interdisciplinary / Multidisciplinary Woolf. Inspired by the interdisciplinarity of the early 20th century British author Virginia Woolf and the current critical movement known as the New Modernist Studies, we outline the theories behind our approach to conference pedagogy and reflect upon our intentions and methods. We also assess learning outcomes in relation to both apprenticeship and non-traditional models of conference-based instructional design, and consider the institutional structures and practices that both enable and limit the scope of cross-disciplinary research and its dissemination at the undergraduate, graduate, and faculty levels. By moving away from the field of literary studies and sharing our scholarly teaching perspective in the context of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, we attempt to put into motion the potentially transformative disciplinary boundary-crossings that motivated the 2012 Woolf Conference. Les colloques universitaires sont des événements axés sur la spécialisation des disciplines et une grande partie des publications en ACEA concernant les rencontres savantes traitent de leurs avantages pour l’apprentissage des étudiants de cycles supérieurs. Lors de la préparation de notre XXe Colloque international annuel sur Virginia Woolf, nous avons exploré d’autres formes de pédagogie afin d’élargir l’approche de professionnalisation académique. En particulier, nous avons créé des opportunités d’enseignement et d’apprentissage pluridisciplinaire qui présentent un potentiel particulier pour les étudiants des humanités qui vont peut-être finir par mettre en application leur formation spécifique à leur discipline à des contextes non-académiques et de manières inattendues. Cet article explore les possibilités et les limites des initiatives pluridisciplinaires que nous avons développées pour notre colloque intitulé Woolf Interdisciplinaire / Pluridisciplinaire. Inspirés par l’interdisciplinarité de l’auteure britannique du début du XXe siècle, Virginia Woolf, et par le mouvement critique actuel qu’on appelle Études du nouveau modernisme, nous présentons les théories sous-jacentes à notre approche de la pédagogie des colloques et proposons une réflexion sur nos intentions et nos méthodes. Nous évaluons également les résultats d’apprentissage par rapport à l’apprentissage lui-même et par rapport aux modèles non traditionnels de conception de l’enseignement basé sur les cours magistraux et prenons en considération les structures et les pratiques institutionnelles qui favorisent mais qui limitent également l’étendue de la recherche pluridisciplinaire et sa diffusion aux niveaux du premier cycle, des cycles supérieurs et des professeurs. En nous éloignant du domaine des études littéraires et en partageant notre perspective d’enseignement intellectuel dans le contexte de l’Avancement des connaissances en enseignement et en apprentissage, nous tentons de mettre en mouvement les possibilités de franchissement des limites disciplinaires transformateur qui ont motivé le colloque sur Virginia Woolf de 2012.

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)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, 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 score0.370
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0080.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.199
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and LearningSame topicInterdisciplinary Research and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207