“The Whole ME presented itself. KABOOM!”: Expressive Arts and Critical Reflection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The importance of critical reflection in higher education highlights the importance of creating rich learning opportunities for students. Expressive arts (e.g., poetry, drama) ignites such opportunity drawing from more than students’ logical-cognitive understandings to include students’ creative, multi-modal and experiential capacities. This paper provides one university instructor’s reflective account of how an expressive arts final assignment (in a non-arts course) invited students to use the languages of the arts to enhance their critical reflection of course learning. Students’ expanded agency and complexity of understanding illustrated expressive arts as a valuable facet of academic work. L’importance de la réflexion critique en éducation postsecondaire rehausse l’intérêt de créer des occasions riches en apprentissage pour les étudiants. Les arts expressives (p. ex. la poésie, les arts de la scène) offrent de telles occasions en allant chercher au-delà des connaissances logiques et cognitives des étudiants pour puiser dans leurs capacités créatrices, multimodales et expérientielles. Cet article présente le compte rendu d’un professeur à l’université sur le rôle d’un travail final reposant sur les arts expressives (dans un cours ne relevant pas du domaine des arts) qui a encouragé les étudiants à utiliser le langage des arts pour mettre en valeur leur réflexion critique du cours. La marge de manœuvre élargie des étudiants et la complexité accrue de leurs connaissances reflètent le rôle important des arts expressives dans le travail académique.
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 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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 teacher head, 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".