Living Curriculum Shifts in Arts Education: From Knowledge Transmission to Worldview Sharing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing upon narrative inquiry into the lived experience of an artist becoming an arts teacher, this research investigates curriculum in arts education. Its focus is the teaching experiences of a professional photographer in the process of becoming a photography teacher. This research began with two teaching assumptions about curriculum. The first was an acquisition-orientation to teaching; knowledge transmission that changes students’ state from unknowing to knowing. The second was a making-orientation to teaching; methods and techniques training that allows students to replicate or produce knowledge. The first emphasized content while the second emphasized how students apply it. These assumptions eventually changed until they emerged as a communication-orientation to teaching that focuses on interaction with students and a sharing-orientation to teaching that engages dialogue between teacher and students instead of teacher monologue. With a communication-orientation and sharing-orientation to teaching, students became curriculum makers rather than curriculum receivers. These shifts in orientation meant students could share “their own stories” together with their own photographs, thus composing valuable narratives for the study—narratives that provided insight into how they see the world. Arts education is not only about transferring knowledge from teacher to students, but about sharing feelings with students. A communicating and sharing curriculum makes possible an encounter of minds between teacher and students, which was conceptualized as “relationship of minds” in this research. It enables us to better understand teaching and curriculum.
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 | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".