A Contemplative Approach to Graduate Writing Development: Reflections from Thai Writing Classrooms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article addresses an under-researched area of writing studies: the use of contemplative pedagogies in the development of graduate writing. Drawing on reflective analysis from writing instructors, this article seeks to both contextualize the teaching and learning of writing in the Thai context, and to introduce experiments in contemplative writing pedagogy. In particular, the article reports on graduate-level writing courses that are embedded within the curricula of two education-field Masters programmes in Thailand. Four instructors involved in these courses reflect on their combined experience of integrating contemplative pedagogies, describing the steps they undertook to bring these into the classroom. The contribution of this study is its reporting on research in the under-considered area of contemplative practices, as well as opening up the consideration for graduate writing development in non-Anglophone contexts, such as Thailand. It is hoped that the documentation of the tools and strategies used by Thai instructors will assist others to bring contemplative approaches into play in their own classrooms.
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 | 0.008 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".