Part Time University Teaching in Ontario: A Self-Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative self-study explored the disappointment I felt as a part-time university teacher in a mid-sized, primarily undergraduate Ontario university, where I experienced difficulty integrating my beliefs about teaching into my practice of teaching. The purpose of this qualitative study was to inquire into why it was difficult for me, representative of a part-time university teacher in a mid-sized, primarily undergraduate university, to enact the critical pedagogical practices I espoused in my teaching philosophy. The secondary purpose was to apply the findings of the study to reframe my university teaching practice in a way that met my need to enact my beliefs about university teaching while complying with the broader geo-political conditions of part-time university teaching in Ontario (Loughran, 2006; Russell & Loughran, 2007). This study is grounded in the sociological theoretical framework of critical pedagogy (Freire, 1970; Giroux, 1988, 2010; McLaren, 2003) and the methodological framework of The Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices (S-STEP). This study combined the methods of Brookfield’s (1995; 2002) critically reflective practice and Cole and Knowles (2000) practice of reflexive inquiry with Creswell’s (2005) methods of thematic analysis to answer the research question: Why is it difficult for me to enact my beliefs about university teaching as a part-time teacher in an Ontario university? Findings suggest the geo-political contexts of part-time university teaching work can impact a teacher’s ability to enact his/her beliefs about teaching within his/her practice of teaching.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".