Drawing as thinking through: students’ use of collaborative drawing to examine ‘problemical’ situations
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
Collaborative drawing is a multimodal approach to examining problems within small groups of individuals when the perspectives of multiple stakeholders should be considered. Collaborative drawing can be useful for helping students visualize and analyze a challenging problem from different world views and provide opportunities to confront, discuss, and identify potential resolutions. Rich Pictures (RPs), the artifacts created through collaborative drawing, were used in two fourth-year undergraduate internship classes (n = 48) to prompt student discussion about potential workplace dilemmas and provide a site for reflecting on professional challenges. Students used graphic objects, icons, and stick figures or ‘actors’ playing distinct roles, to map out a problematic workplace scenario. The RPs created by the students illustrated the emotional complexities inherent in complex problems through spatial organization, commonly used symbols and emojis, and narrative vignettes. The RPs provided a space for students to surface their emotional responses to the problem scenarios, examine the inherent power dispositions, and illustrate the nuanced and complex perspectives to consider in professional environments. The findings contribute insight on multimodal strategies for facilitating opportunities for students to develop their professional identities, and present innovative methodologies for researchers in Higher Education to study that development.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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