Teaching Teacher Candidates about Social Transformations through Arts and Place: "Wait, but What Does It Have to Do with Me as a Teacher?".
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this creative and reflective inquiry, I explore the pedagogical significance of arts as a place-based praxis of social transformations in a Canadian teacher education program with a focus on my students’ learning experience. The research features their pedagogical becoming (Gouzouasis, Irwin, Miles, & Gordon, 2013) which includes the aesthetic development of their self-concept as future teachers and the critical development of their authorial agency (Matusov, 2011; Matusov et al., 2016;). The research question was, in fact, posed by some of the students themselves, who did not understand or did not want to understand, why they were compelled to take this course by the program requirement and to consider themselves as artists. They asked, “What does it have to do with me as a teacher?” Then, they stated that education and art are two different domains of knowledge that should not be mixed at all. Hence, they did not want to do anything with art in any form or shape in their education. I explore their question through a constructionist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006, 2008) and conclude with the pedagogical recommendations and suggestions for future research.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".