Creativity and pedagogical innovation: Exploring teachers’ experiences of risk-taking
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this paper is to share the results of research into the experience of teacher risk-taking in the classroom. The development of children as risk-takers is featured prominently in curriculum documents and reports calling for the competencies of 21st century learning. Teachers are expected to become 21st century learners who model risk-taking. The repeated calls for the development of risk-taking students through the modelling of risk-taking teachers makes the experience of risk an important pedagogical question. However, 21st century learning documents do not take up substantively the meaning of teacher risk-taking.Research Design: Phenomenological research is concerned with the unique and the individual and in that regards each teacher-participant represents particular perceptions of risk-taking experiences and responses to risk in the classroom. The six (6) teacher-participants responded to a call distributed widely to teaching staff in a Canadian school district. The inquiry relied on phenomenological interviews and experiential life world material. In this paper three phenomenological themes are described: risk and readiness; risk and the in-between spaces of pedagogy, and risk as exploration and finding a way. This research allows us to understand teachers’ lived experience rather than assume the meaning of the terms risk and risk-taking.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it