Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore three diverse case studies in higher education that provide learners with innovative, disruptive and potent ways of seeing, thinking and acting. It considers pedagogical structure and phenomenological dimensions over an array of study abroad and immersive learning conditions. This paper illustrates rich and impactful ways that learning can unfold, including the unintended consequences of education that opens eyes, changes perspectives and builds empathy. Methodology This paper deploys a case study method whereby three unique programs for studio education are critically considered/analyzed. The research connects cases and delineates approaches in environmental design, whereby greater understanding and deeper knowledge can be attained. Findings This paper, through study of cases of immersive learning, reveals effective ways in which studio teaching can serve to heighten sensitivity, construct rich self/world views and render visible more profound knowledge. Such knowledge transcends disciplinary boundaries and professional borders – encompassing a fuller spectrum of awareness that includes the social, the cultural and the spiritual. Research limitations/implications This paper investigates studio-based graduate education in Environmental Design, with a particular focus on Architecture/Planning. As such, there are limitations to the applicability of discoveries and revelations. That said, the general model for teaching and learning may have value across disciplines well beyond those examined in the current research. Practical implications In an increasingly complex world, where cultures and values routinely collide, the research presents pedagogical approaches that promise to erode walls, dissolve barriers and counter fragmentation. The case studies illustrate effective ways to heighten learning beyond the ethos of traditional classes and conventional classrooms. Originality/value This paper proffers bold creative models for teaching that defy everyday strategies. It encourages moving students to places/spaces, both concrete and abstract, that challenge their assumptions, test their capabilities and permit exceptional personal/professional growth.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
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".