Stories of learning: Inquiry-based pathways of discovery through environmental education
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 our work in environmental education (EE) as part of formal schooling we partnered with local schools to explore the practice of embedding, or integrating EE within formal school curriculum using inquiry-based pedagogies. In this paper we report on and discuss our growing understanding of the practice of pedagogical documentation and the subsequent creation of learning stories within the context of EE. Our thinking is focused on how teacher practice in the use of learning stories might strengthen student self-determination in inquiry-based environmental education opportunities. We describe the E4E (Educating for Environment) school project, and provide samples of learning stories as evidence for analysis and discussion. Working with a grounded theory approach, we propose that student thinking in inquiry-based contexts might follow one or more of five thinking/learning pathways (reasoning, propositional, action-oriented, metacognitive and emotive). We close with comments on the benefits to students and educators alike, when we merge EE with learning stories.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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