Collaborative Writing as an Exercise of Poetic Resistance in Teacher Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last decade we have strived through a collaborative writing project to open a polyvocal and layered conversation on critical contemporary issues in teacher education, even as our program faced its demise. Our writing inquiries began as a critical thinking-through of the qualities of lived experiences as instructors within an innovative and now defunct teacher education program. The context for our work was a radically construed approach to teacher education that—in its language, form, and curriculum—challenged prevailing norms of practice. In our collaborative writing we confront the difficult work of teacher education, addressing specific challenges, complex demands, and forms of resistance that are prevalent in faculties of education everywhere. Such challenges include how we narrate alternative visions of teacher education, attend to issues of ethics and recognition, deal with the complexities of learning professional practice and take into account the larger, historical project of teacher education. As a provocative example of self-study research, our collaborative method of inquiry illustrates the richness and productivity of poetic, practice-based research, oriented to critical issues in teacher education. The intentional effort to make our work public and politically provocative is an attempt by the authors to reveal the importance of these critical conversations in advancing our work. Specifically, what makes such conversations important includes questions about how we should enact our responsibilities for teacher education and also how we give account for enacting those responsibilities. We intend our conversations and thinking-through about practices in teacher education to remain open-ended and responsive to a plurality of thought and experience. Collaborative writing serves for us as a kind of resistance, reclaiming, re-storying, and historical accounting through encounters with others.
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 | 0.077 | 0.156 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.106 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.035 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.037 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| 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".