Creativity and Standardization: The Ability of Museum-Based Programming to Inform 21st Century Education | Créativité et normalisation : la capacité des programmes muséaux à renseigner l’éducation au 21ème siècle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This paper reports the findings of an investigation of an educational programme situated in a provincial museum complex. Phase One of the research focused on teachers and showed the program promoted observation and reflection. Phase Two assessed the impact on student achievement. The data gathering method necessary for Phase Two revealed tensions between standardization and the arts community. Working with this tension, researchers defined achievement and measured essential program goals of the curriculum (“21st century competencies”). The discussion is interpretive and it is argued that museum-based experiential programming could be a contributor to the discussion on 21st century education policy.Keywords: Museum-Based Education; Standardization; 21st Century Skills; Educational AssessmentRésumé : Cet article relate les résultats d’une enquête menée sur un programme d’étude au sein d’un complexe muséal provincial. La phase un de la recherche ciblant les enseignants a démontré que le programme encourageait l’observation et la réflexion. La phase deux concernait l’impact du programme sur les réalisations des élèves. La méthode de collecte des données utilisée en phase deux a mis en évidence certaines tensions entre la normalisation et la communauté artistique. Les chercheurs ont utilisé ces tensions pour définir la réalisation et quantifier les objectifs premiers du programme (les « compétences au 21ème siècle »). Dans un contexte de discussion interprétative, on y affirme que la programmation expérientielle à caractère muséale, pourrait alimenter le débat sur la politique pédagogique au 21ème siècle.Mots-clés : éducation muséale ; normalisation ; compétences au 21ème siècle ; évaluation pédagogique
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 | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".