Contemplative Observation as a Tool for Self-Reflection Enhancement of Early Childhood Graduate Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Being an astute observer of children is a primary skill for early childhood teachers. This paper reports on a project conducted in Thailand that investigated the use of the contemplative observation method as a tool for developing the ability of being non-judgmental. The aim of this study was to improve the processes of self-reflection of early childhood graduate students in order to build the quality of their observational skills for practice with children. Eight female early childhood graduate students were assigned to practice observation across 13 weeks involving two major types of contemplative observation practices: (a) self-observation comprising dancing meditation, still meditation, flower arrangement, painting, clay modeling, and mandala drawing, and (b) external observation comprising awareness of non-living as well as living things such as stones, plants, and children. Associated activities of journal writing were assigned to reflect learning experiences focused on awarenes of the self in relation to the practices including in-depth interviews both before and after the study. Contemplative observation might assist teachers in moving from aspects of reflection to greater self-awareness, and achieve greater fairness in their observations of and dealings with young children in classrooms.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".