Exploring the relationship between theology and learning through the lens of disruption
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As in many other contexts, for theological education practitioners, successful teaching and learning outcomes not only include students’ clear comprehension of curriculum content but also the cultivation of skills to contextualise learning in multiple, unforeseen circumstances. In other words, academic achievement and personal/spiritual formation are inseparable. My research suggests that disruptive pedagogies (whether related to what is taught or how) are a foundational pedagogical tool that not only equip students to gain and understand new information but skills learners in practising the imaginative posture required to use their learning in real world situations. Against a larger backdrop, this conversation will explore: (a) The pedagogical and sociological factors implicated in (what I call) disruptive-inclusive learning, (b) How my work concerning the nature of the relationship between theology and pedagogy could contribute to a wider framework for considering the learning methodologies and methods indicated by a range of subject disciplines, and (c.) how such discussions, in turn, may lead to richer, more holistic and integrated approaches to LD more generally. - What are the biggest challenges in developing a dialogue between the how and the what of teaching and learning (i.e. curriculum content and T&L methodologies/ methods)? - What categories of learning disruption are specifically associated with different subject areas? As learning practitioners, do we equip learners to embrace or avoid these disruptions? - Did we/ what did we learn from the pandemic about operating in and preparing for the unknown and unforeseeable? What might the next phase of this be?
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.104 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".