Meditative inquiry for educators: Understanding the significance of spirituality, contextual and cultural awareness, and organic change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This conversational paper explores the concept and practice of meditative inquiry in the context of teacher education. Meditative inquiry is a holistic approach to teaching, learning, researching, creating, and living. Due to its strength and versatility, meditative inquiry has been taken up in a variety of educational settings (Kumar, 2022). By employing dialogical meditative inquiry (Kumar & Downey, 2018), which aims to delve deeper than a typical interview, the authors engage in a dialogue that probes into the significance of meditative inquiry for educators. Leaning into the authors’ experiences with secondary social studies and teacher education, this paper: 1) discusses philosophical and pedagogical aspects of mediative inquiry by examining the differences and similarities between critical reflection and meditative inquiry; 2) explores the significance of a spiritual perspective for social studies education; and 3) offer pointers on how teachers can adopt meditative inquiry in the context of classroom teaching.
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 | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".