Educational Developers and Their Uses of Learning Theories: Conceptions and Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis reports on a study designed to understand how learning theories fit in the practice of educational developers; specifically, developersâ conceptions of learning theories, their use of theories, and, finally, factors that influence the way learning theories shape developersâ practice. To investigate these questions, a qualitative study was undertaken with eleven Canadian university educational developers, all formally associated with a campus-wide teaching and learning centre. By taking an exploratory approach, while drawing upon learning theories and educational development literature, aspects of educational developersâ understanding and use of learning theories were highlighted. \nThe findings showed that educational developers in this study: (i) conceptualize learning theories as lowercase âltâ as opposed to uppercase âLTâ, and (ii) define learning theories based on their prior disciplines. These practitioners didnât associate learning theories with formal academic theories aimed at understanding a situation; instead they had formed their own synthesis of theories to help them perceive the characteristics of a particular situation. Also, the way the participants defined and conceptualized learning theories seemed to correspond to their prior disciplines and areas of study. Five definitions of learning theories were identified among educational developers: philosophy, language, educational-psychology, holistic, and neuroscience-based. In terms of how theories shape developersâ work, developers were categorized in three groups: (1) those who had a tendency to implicitly use learning theories âfocusing more on practical explorations for achieving a desired outcome (seven in total); (2) developers who had a tendency to consciously use learning theories â taking more of a comprehensive approach by examining their assumptions and focusing on causes and effects that influence their practice (three in total); and, (3) one developer who had characteristics of both groups. Factors such as educational background, professional identities, and perceived audience readiness appeared to influence participantsâ uses of learning theories. Seeing their work as part of a collective, and attending to the emotional needs of their audience also seemed to impact these practitionersâ work. \nConsidering the limited research examining how educational developers conceptualize learning theories and the way theories inform their practice, this study contributes in generating discussions and future research in a community that continues to grow and situate itself within the higher education landscape.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".