MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2935113480 · doi:10.3138/tric.39.1.80

An Informal Assessment of Twenty-First-Century Skills Developed Through Hidden Curriculum in Theatre Studies

2018· article· en· W2935113480 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Claire Carolan

Bibliographic record

VenueTheatre Research in Canada · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt Education and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRubricCurriculum21st century skillsPedagogyAustralian CurriculumMathematics educationPsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Arguably more than any previous generation, students graduating from university programs in the twenty-first century need a comprehensive repertoire of essential skills for their rapidly evolving world. Undergraduate theatre training offers a wide range of those skills. In response to Glen Nichols’s prompt for the CATR panel discussions, I conducted an informal assessment of skills that are generated in Canadian theatre programs (2017) based on an available 1994 rubric for “Arts Education Standards and Twenty-First Century Skills.” 1 Analytical reasoning, information literacy, invention, self-direction, collaboration, and technological integration are examples of the competencies developed through effective undergraduate theatre studies programs; however, they are often the “hidden curriculum” (Jackson) little recognized by theatre educators and university administrators. There are limiting factors in the successful mining of the hidden curriculum for the benefit of our students including a lack of adequate teacher training for existing and incoming faculty (Pagen 223). Notwithstanding these factors, undergraduate theatre programs can provide a forum for the development of necessary skills for the twenty-first-century student.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.687
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTheatre Research in CanadaSame topicArt Education and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207