Meeting at the Intersection of Practice and Theory:How do I enact relational pedagogy when working with children affected by childhood cancers?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis presents my narrative examination of the question: how do I enact relational pedagogy when working with children affected by childhood cancers? The exploration of this research question presented me with an opportunity to understand my observations and add new knowledge to my practice while working with children at the Kids with Cancer Society of Northern Alberta (KWCS). I used action research through the theoretical lens of relational pedagogy. I initiated a three-cycle action research plan around topics that were determined by both the children and myself. During the cycles, the children worked with each other and me as co-creators, co-planners and co-educators guiding the direction of each art session. Each cycle comprised of two art making sessions that included reflections for the planning of subsequent sessions. Furthermore, the children and I engaged in reflective journaling to document our experiences of the art sessions. The journal entries helped me understand the perspective of the children, and further provided them agency in expressing their perspectives as they related to engaging with art practices. In my embodiment of relational pedagogy the following themes emerged: shared practices, learning about my practice and myself, reconsidering roles, and the balancing act between practice and theory. Keywords: pedagogy of relation, relational, children, art education, action research, narrative, cancer
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 | 0.019 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| 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".