Educating Perfinkers: How Cognitive Tools Support Affective Engagement in Teacher Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our intention is to share our lived experiences as educators of educators employing Imaginative Education (IE) pedagogy. We aim to illuminate IE’s influence on our students’, and our own, affective alertness, and to leave readers feeling the possibility of this pedagogy for teaching and learning. Inspired by the literary and research praxis of métissage(Chambers et al., 2012; Hasebe-Ludt et al., 2009; Hasebe-Ludt et al., 2010), we offer this polyphonic text as a weaving together of our discrete and collective voices as imaginative teacher educators. Our writing reflects a relational process, one that invites us as writers and colleagues to better understand each other and our practices as IE educators (Hasebe-Ludt et al., 2009). It also allows us to share with other practitioners our struggles, questions, and triumphs as we make sense of our individual and collective praxis: how IE’s theory informs our practice, and how our practice informs our understanding of IE’s theory. This text, like IE’s philosophy, invites heterogeneous possibilities.Notre intention est de partager nos expériences vécues en tant que formateurs et formatrices d’éducateurs et d’éducatrices en employant la pédagogie de l’éducation imaginative. Nous souhaitons illuminer l’influence de l’éducation imaginative sur nos étudiants et nos étudiantes, ainsi que notre propre vigilance affective, et que les lecteurs ressentent la possibilité de cette pédagogie d’enseignement et d’apprentissage. Inspirés par les publications et la praxis de recherche du métissage(Chambers et al, 2012; Hasebe-Ludt et al, 2009; Hasebe-Ludt et al, 2010), nous offrons ce texte polyphonique comme un tissage de nos voix discrètes et collectives en tant que formateurs imaginatifs et formatrices imaginatives d’enseignants et d’enseignantes. Notre texte reflète un processus relationnel qui nous invite, en tant que rédacteurs, rédactrices et collègues, à mieux nous comprendre les uns les autres et à mieux comprendre nos pratiques en tant que formateurs et formatrices en éducation imaginative (Hasebe-Ludt et al, 2009). Il nous permet également de partager avec d’autres praticiens nos luttes, nos questions et nos triomphes alors que nous donnons un sens à notre praxis individuelle et collective : de quelle manière la théorie de l’éducation imaginative informe-t-elle notre pratique et comment notre pratique informe-t-elle notre compréhension de la théorie de l’éducation imaginative. Ce texte, tout comme la philosophie de l’éducation imaginative, invite de nombreuses possibilités hétérogènes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".