The Art of Thinking: Using Collage to Stimulate Scholarly Work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Integrating the arts into higher education pedagogy provides an opportunity for cultivating rich ideas and high-level thinking, capitalizing on the creativity that every person already possesses and uses (Livingston, 2010). As Newton and Plummer (2009) note “the use of the creative arts as pedagogical strategy enables individuals to better understand themselves, [and] to stimulate thinking” (p. 75). We extend that premise to examine the impact of an arts activity on scholarly thinking. Our exploratory study examines academics’ (graduate students and educators) identity and role constructs (Kelly, 1955) to understand to what extent engaging in arts-based activities supports meaning-making and conceptualizing research questions. We asked participants to reflect on collages they created, how the collage process supported their research conceptualization, challenges they encountered, and their overall reflections on the process as an adjunct to written scholarly work. We show that the process of creating collages supported participants in making their tacit knowledge explicit, in reflecting at meta-cognitive levels, and in transforming their thinking, often in ways they anticipated would affect their future practice. L’intégration des arts dans la pédagogie de l’enseignement supérieur offre l’occasion de cultiver de riches idées et rend possible une réflexion d’ordre supérieur qui permet de capitaliser sur la créativité que chaque personne possède déjà et utilise (Livingston, 2010). Comme le font remarquer Newton et Plummer (2009), « l’usage des arts créatifs en tant que stratégies pédagogiques permet aux gens de mieux se comprendre et de stimuler la réflexion. » (p. 75) Nous élargissons cette prémisse pour examiner l’impact d’une activité artistique sur la pensée savante. Notre étude exploratoire examine l’identité d’universitaires (étudiants de cycles supérieurs et éducateurs) et les constructions de rôles (Kelly, 1955) pour comprendre la mesure dans laquelle le fait de s’engager dans des activités artistiques appuie la conceptualisation de questions qui portent sur la recherche de la signification. Nous avons demandé aux participants de réfléchir aux collages qu’ils avaient créés, à la manière dont le processus de création de ces collages avait appuyé leur conceptualisation de la recherche, aux défis auxquels ils avaient été confrontés et à leur réflexion générale sur le processus en tant qu’activité d’appoint à leurs travaux académiques écrits. Nous montrons que le processus de création de collages a aidé les participants à rendre explicites leurs connaissances tacites, à réfléchir à des niveaux méta-cognitifs et à transformer leur pensée d’une manière qui allait souvent, comme ils l’avaient anticipé, affecter leur pratique future.
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 | 0.011 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".