Promising Practices in Higher Education: Art Education and Human Rights using Information, Communication Technologies (ICT)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Promising pedagogical practices is described in relation to incorporating ICT (Information, Communication and Technologies) with the study of Human Rights issues in Visual Arts Education for teacher candidates. As part of a course, ‘Senior Years Art,’ students at the Faculty of Education, University of Manitoba during 2013-2014 experienced a class project entitled, ‘digiART and Human Rights: A New Media, Arts Integrated Project.’ For this course the authors drew upon a pilot course held earlier in 2011 as a Faculty of Education Summer Graduate Institute in which significant curricula using new media was connected to the theories outlined in the Human Rights Education Paradigm by Tibbitts (2002) specifically related to the (1) values/awareness model (2) accountability model and (3) transformational model. The authors found that models 1 and 3 relate to pedagogical approaches regarding ICT in visual arts education. In this article the writers will describe one outstanding student’s process learning about ICT in relation to examining the Canadian immigrant experience. The pedagogical approach used has the promise for wider relevance across subject areas.
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 | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".