Co-creative practice reconciling theory and practice in tertiary student documentary production
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accommodating theory and practice is a significant pedagogical challenge for screen programmes in higher education. Integrating theory and practice within the pedagogy of documentary screen production raises specific issues related to its ethical obligations and social change remit. Designing screen studies programmes that effectively support students to become critically aware and reflexive practitioners requires historical and theoretical knowledge to underpin and inform production skillsets [Wayne 2003. “Reflections on Pedagogy.” Journal of Media Practice 4 (1): 55–61; de Jong 2006. “From ‘Doing’ to ‘Knowing What You are Doing’: Kolb's Learning Theory in Teaching Documentary Practice.” Journal of Media Practice 7 (2): 151–158]. Prompted by the reaccreditation of our degree, this article critically reflects on the suite of practice and theory-based units that collectively strengthen student understanding and skillsets in factual screen storytelling. Mezirow’ three forms of reflection are framed within Kreber and Cranton’s scholarship of teaching model, to guide reflection on curriculum, pedagogy and three student documentaries as exemplars of aspirational learning outcomes. Our reflections identify how co-creative processes embedded in a spiral curriculum course structure supports opportunities for students to innovate fundamentals of praxis within a community of practice.
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.
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 | 0.018 | 0.148 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it