Looking and listening for learning in arts‐ and humanities‐based creations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: The arts and humanities are gradually gaining a foothold in health professions education as a means of supporting the development of future clinicians who are compassionate, critical and reflexive thinkers, while also strengthening clinical skills and practices that emphasise patient-centredness, collaboration and interprofessional practices. Assignments that tap into trainee creativity are increasingly used both to prepare learners for the demands of clinical work and to understand the personal and professional challenges learners face in these contexts. Health professions educators need methods for interpreting these creations in order to understand each learner's expressions. This paper describes two theoretical frameworks that can be used to understand trainees' unique learning experiences as they are expressed in arts- and humanities-based creations. METHODS: The authors introduce the philosophical underpinnings and interpretation procedures of two theoretical frameworks that enable educators to 'hear' and 'see' the multilayered expressions embedded within arts- and humanities-based student creations: Gilligan's Listening Guide and Kress and van Leeuwen's approach to visual rhetoric. To illustrate how these frameworks can be used, the authors apply them to two creative summaries that learners made as part of a humanities-informed, interprofessional education intervention that took place in a non-acute-care teaching hospital. The interpretations of two creative summaries, a poem and a pair of paintings, highlight how applying these theoretical frameworks can offer important insights into learners' experiences. CONCLUSIONS: This cross-cutting edge paper describes how the Listening Guide and visual rhetoric can help health professions educators listen to and read the arts- and humanities-based creative expressions made by learners. Insights gained from these interpretations can advance the understanding of students' personal experiences in different learning environments and can inform curriculum development.
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 | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".