MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122192169 · doi:10.20429/ijsotl.2013.070104

Multiple Ways of Knowing in Teaching and Learning

2013· article· en· W2122192169 on OpenAlexaff
Balbir Gurm

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational and Psychological Assessments
Canadian institutionsKwantlen Polytechnic University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipField (mathematics)SociologyWork (physics)ChinEpistemologyPedagogyPsychologyMathematics educationPhilosophyPolitical scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this essay, I advocate for a broader and inclusive understanding of knowing and knowledge. I borrow from the field of Nursing and the accepted ways of knowing based on the seminal work done by Professor Barbara Carper (1978) and Chin and Kramer’s (2008) in addition to the fundamental patterns of knowing in nursing education. I translate and transform this work to argue for the acceptance of a framework for multiple ways of knowing in teaching and learning. I encourage the academic academy, to reflect on the multiple ways of knowing and in turn accept that all knowing is not about empirics, and excellent teachers have aesthetic knowing and are engaged in the scholarship of teaching and learning.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.365
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.004
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.323 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations14
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and LearningSame topicEducational and Psychological AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207