Exemplary Educators Who Embrace a Teaching Philosophy Guided by a Pedagogy of Kindness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this literature review was to explore scholarly and grey literature on teaching approaches to pedagogy in higher education, with a focus on the pedagogy of kindness. For the analysis, we reviewed six research reports from peer-reviewed journals on the pedagogy of kindness, three books written by acclaimed theorists on critical pedagogy and the pedagogy of hope, and seven articles from grey literature. The questions addressed were, what does the literature reveal are the effects of a pedagogy of kindness on the learning environment, and what are the outcomes for learners when educators embrace this teaching philosophy? Does the employ of kindness in teaching influence learners’ attitudes about issues surrounding social justice? Further, are there links between being an exemplary educator, teaching success, and the enactment of a pedagogy of kindness? In this paper, we examine emerging themes related to how this teaching philosophy impacts learners and the learning environment and the connection between a pedagogy of kindness and traits of exemplary educators. Finally, these themes guided a discussion on the implications for practice. In sum, the literature revealed that a teaching model based on a pedagogy of kindness enhances the performance of outstanding educators and increases their success in teaching. Moreover, this philosophy positively influences students, their learning environments, their educational achievements, and heightens their social consciousness.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".