Manitoba waterways talk: Six canoeing instructors learn from experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative research study explores how six canoeing instructors learn and what they believe about significant canoeing skills and knowledge. The participants have a long-standing history of teaching canoeing as well as being influential players in the recreational canoeing community. The data in this narrative study consisted of three semi-structured interviews with each of the six participants and took approximately 7 months to collect. I recorded and transcribed the interviews and then coded the data into themes that describe their experience and reveal their learning. The adult education themes from the research demonstrated numerous informal learning strategies and lifelong learning principles and practices. The participants learnt from their canoeing experience and from their everyday activities. They learnt in groups and from within the paddling community and placed great value on the social exchange of knowledge. Other events led to learning such as challenges, negative experiences, and travel outside their community. The participant transcripts demonstrated that mentors and modeling were important aspects of their learning. They also showed that their learning occurred over a lifetime, encompassed more than canoeing instruction, and filled non-vocational needs, for instance social and self-development. The participants’ narratives in this thesis exposed a control-safety-fun approach to teaching canoeing as the most significant canoeing skill or knowledge to pass on. Their narratives and craft knowledge are absent from the existing canoeing literature, which is oriented towards explaining individual canoeing and camping skills or describing various canoeing areas and routes. This thesis adds to the minimal adult education literature on teaching and learning in recreational activities and supports the literature on learning from experience.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.087 | 0.017 |
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".