Fostering Transformative Learning Through Cocreative Artmaking Processes and Emerging Artful Forms
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we take a retrospective look at a workshop where Jasna, a nurse educator, was a participant, and Kathy, a preservice teacher educator, was both a participant and the facilitator of an artful inquiry process she calls co-creative writing. By putting forward our stories, we share our experiences as well as contribute to ongoing discussions on the value of engaging in cocreative arts-based approaches to enhancing transformative learning. More specifically, we engage in a critical reflective dialogue to illustrate how the process of making art together can create space for transformative learning and thus help to deepen our understanding of our teaching–learning relationships. Particular attention is given to organic collaborative artistic processes and how they support dialogue, encourage critical reflection, nurture authentic relationships, and foster creative and expressive ways of knowing and being, as well as a more holistic orientation toward transformative 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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.003 |
| 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 it