Bibliographic record
Abstract
This introductory workshop will focus on using critical questioning techniques to encourage education students to think through different lenses when approaching education methods and pedagogy. Undergraduate education students, particularly music education students, often enter university with a desire to replicate an educational experience, program, or teacher they had as an elementary or secondary school student. The use of critical questioning will help students think outside this narrow box of experience and create space to consider in what ways we may be complicit in perpetuating norms that may not be inclusive of all students. Research indicates that the use of critical questioning promotes student reflexivity and engages students in higher level thinking (Abramo, 2015; Pagliaro, 2011; Yang, Newby, & Bill, 2005). In addition, this practice is important as education students and pre-service teachers with experience in critical questioning will have the tools necessary to promote critical thought and questioning in their own classrooms as educators. Although this content is specific to music education students, applications to educators in all subjects will also be acknowledged and facilitated in this workshop.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".