Theatre arts with youth in an alternative educational setting : a case study of a teaching artist
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conceptual FrameworkTeaching A¡tist i3 .I must be able to bring power to my students and to draw on their power.þp.[18][19][20][21] Heathcote's suggestions, whle they refer to an awareness and means for interaction with students, also impart the importance of relating to ourselves, and the practice ofreflection.Heathcote advises, "Before we can ¡elate to people successfully, we must fust come to terms with ourselves" (198a, p. 22).British researcher Hesten (n.d.) wrote her doctoral thesis on Heathcote and with Heathcote's collaboratior¡ created a large archive of her legacy in dramatic a¡ts education Hesten (n.d.) acknowledges the necessity of reflection in Heathcote's practice: Although, she was to become one of the world's leading Drama in Education practitioners, she never lost sight ofher c€ntral beliefth¿t her teaching methodology was dependent on her own praxis.A concept which she had adopted from Freire...Freire believes in the dialectical movement ofaction and ¡eflection.Action causes reflection and reflection causes new action.Praxis is puçoseflrl activity.(p.15) Heathcote's writing on teaching dramatic arts, Shor's guide for empowering educatior¡ and Courtney's suggestions for d¡amatic a¡ts age appropr¡âte curriculum form the conceptual framework for this research study and provide significant guidance for the data analysis and interpretation ofa teaching artist's practice.SigniJìcance of the studyThis is a unique study that will be of benefit to policy-makers, educators, teaching artists, and researchers in that the role ofthe artist is documented and analyzed, thereby providing valuable insights into the goals, practice and influences affecting teaching Teaching Artist 14 artists' curricular choices.Policy makers may gain insight into the value ofthe teaching artist as curriculum planner and consider their fi¡rther integration into the educational system.Educators may be encouraged to invite teaching artists in their classroorn, to support their students' artistic experience and their own professional development in the arts.This study also provides teaching artists and arts educators with documentation of a teaching artist's empoweriog pedagogy and cleæ curriculum plan.The study may also serve to encou¡age teaching artists and educators to more fully reflect upon their own teaching practice.A¡tists who are not yet teaching may gain the impetus to explore and develop their own teaching potential.Researchers and student researchers are provided with an example of a well-documented case study.The study may also provide ¡esearchers with the encouragement to corsider areas of fuither research.The study sewes as a rnajor contribution to the under-researched area ofteaching artists employed or contacted to work in the area ofarts education in Canada and may be a stimulus for fi¡rther conversations abouf, and research into, the role and possibilities for teaching artists.As Canadian Drama and English educator David Booth (1998) observes, 'lvhen the community listens to its members revealing and commenting upon his or her experiences, everyone can benefit from the variety ofobservations being offered, selecting those reflections that will illuminate their ownjourneys.i'Organization of the Study Chapter I introduces the study by examining the research problern, defuring the purpose ofthe study and providing the conceptual framework guiding the study.Chapter II reviews the literature related to the study with a focus on the te¿shing artist as curriculum planner.chapter trI identifies the methodological path for conducting the Ieaching Artist 15 research study.Chapter IV provides the furdings, the analyses and interpretations ofthe data collected, a¡rd the final chapter, Chapter V, addresses curricultrm implications ofthe study and suggests areas for further research.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".