Designing transformational professional learning opportunities: understanding participants’ experiences in an on-line and in-place imagination-focused self-study
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
The question of how to transform teachers’ practices is vexing, especially if the goal is to change deep set conceptions of human separation from the natural world. In this research, we employed an arts-based methodological approach to consider what kind of professional learning design supports transformation towards pedagogies that acknowledge humankind’s interconnectedness with the more-than-human world. We examined educators’ experiences in a program called Spring TIPs (Teaching Imagination in Place), a self-study designed to engage three principles of eco-social change: Relationality, Immersion and Affect. Seeking to engage imagination explicitly in our methods to enrich analysis possibilities, we employed digital collaging alongside thematic coding to analyse the data collected in focus group interviews. Findings indicate how the program design supported participants’ transformative unlearning and new learning. Unexpectedly, the arts-based and imaginative research process supported our unlearning too, revealing implications and next steps for imagination-focused professional learning for teachers and researchers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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