Creating the Dance and Dancing Creatively: Exploring the Liminal Space of Choreography for Emergence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, three dance scholars explore the tensions and bliss inherent in curriculum delivery through dance integration. It meets the call for a curriculum attuned to provoking encounters (Pinar & Grumet, 2015) through philosophical narration that interweaves experiences as dancers, dance educators, dance scholars and dance integrators. Personal vignettes unveil the sense-making of creative artists tasked with the duty to “deliver” curriculum, and as arts integration specialists tasked with the duty to share knowledge, with teachers, for designing learning through dance. The authors liken the inherent tensions to those of a tight rope walker balancing between forces pulled in opposite directions. They share their own encounters of pedagogical balance and counterbalance, of choreography and emergence, and of leading and following, as each relates to learning design. They also explore the duality of meeting curricular ends and unfolding endless possibilities (Aoki, 2005; Roth, 2014). Together, the authors find that their collective experience leads to three charges for curricular reform: 1) embed dance integration in teacher preparation; 2) infuse dance integration in K-12 curriculum; and 3) provide time for pedagogical experimentation through dance-based inquiry.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".