THE ROLE OF RESISTANCE AND SOCIAL CAPITAL IN FACILITATING LATINO/A COLLEGE SUCCESS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT CONTEMPLATIVE PRACTICES AND LEARNING: A HOLISTIC APPROACH TO EDUCATION IN BHUTAN May 2016 Yang Gyeltshen, DAUS, University of New Brunswick Canada M.Ed., University of New Brunswick Canada Ph.D., University of Massachusetts Amherst Directed by: Professor Cristine S. Crispin This study examines the comments, behavior, and products of young student monks, who are exposed to an integrated curriculum of contemplative practices and secular lessons, about whether and how they bring their social-emotional learning from the contemplative practices to bear when learning secular functional skills and knowledge. At the beginning of my self-study, I hypothesized that an integrated curriculum of secular learning combined with contemplative practices would result in deeper learning, based on the research and literature on the connection between affective and cognitive learning. My findings support and do not negate previous research that an integrated curriculum, integrating contemplative practices with secular studies—affective and cognitive learning—contributes both to one’s affective, social and emotional development and to improved cognitive learning. My observations of students’ comments, behavior and products lead me to propose that the Dharma lessons incorporated in each thematic unit in the Lhomon Education curriculum work toward that end. I propose that contemplative practices help to build critical, problem-solving, analytic and cognitive skills that educators strive to develop in students. My proposition—and that of Bhutan—is that the ultimate goal of education should be well-being and happiness, and the purpose of education should be to create those conditions that will enable the pursuer to strive for this fundamental goal.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".