Class Participation in an Aboriginal Theatre Project: An Exemplar of Undergraduate Student Engagement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 21st Century, Canadian universities are increasingly emphasizing the importance of student engagement. This research paper, by analyzing the reflections of undergraduate students on their experiences in a co-curricular service learning assignment – integrated into a course that included more traditional assignments – in the context of situated learning theory, advocates for a community-focused assignment as a component in a “traditional” lecture-and-discussion based course as a tool for enhanced engagement through active, collaborative learning. While the case study explored is a drama course, the anticipated audience is pan-disciplinary, as the article casts more broadly by providing brief, general guidelines on implementing an experiential learning assignment and encouraging all professors to reflect on their classroom theory and praxis to the end of augmenting student engagement. Au 21e siècle, les universités canadiennes accordent une place de plus en plus importante à l’engagement des étudiants. Les auteurs de ce rapport de recherche analysent les réflexions des étudiants de premier cycle à propos d’un travail pratique (TP) qu’ils ont effectué dans le cadre de l’apprentissage par le service communautaire– intégré à un cours qui comprenait des TP plus traditionnels – dans le contexte de la théorie de l’apprentissage situé. Les auteurs préconisent des TP axés sur la collectivité en tant que composants d’un cours « traditionnel » comportant des exposés magistraux et des discussions. Ce type de TP est un outil permettant d’améliorer l’engagement grâce à l’apprentissage actif et collaboratif. L’étude de cas porte sur un cours d’art dramatique, mais le public visé par le présent article est multidisciplinaire. En effet, les auteurs de l’article considèrent les choses plus largement en fournissant de brèves directives générales sur la mise en œuvre d’un devoir dans le cadre de l’apprentissage expérientiel et encouragent tous les enseignants à réfléchir sur leurs stratégies d’enseignement théoriques et pratiques afin d’augmenter l’engagement des étudiants.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".