The produce collaborative knowledge among art-educators within learning processes in different time and settings to work in the school
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study argues on the possibilities for constructing knowledge among art-educators within learning processes in different time and settings, to produce collaborative knowledge that can call for other meanings to educational formation, work, and curriculum arts actions in school. Based on a multi-reference approach, the research presents multiple dialogues between rationalities that rely on aesthetical education trajectory in school, stressing the context art-educators’ daily aesthetics, whose formative trajectory and teaching work is showed in distinctions of social taste. The knowledge development paradigm in the multi-reference perspective gathers a heterogeneous co-production from studies and ways established with subjects during the collaborative research-action, with the following desired epistemologically coherent aims: engaging research subjects’ participation as co-producers of knowledge centered in actions within art-education formation and work at school, and the production of knowledge that can provide collaborative learning in art-education practice, which offers formative projects articulated with school culture; reasoning on significant time settings/neighborhoods as well as their potentialities to intensify collaborative learning among art-educators; describing knowledge produced within collaborative learning events and its contribution to instruct and improve art-educators’ teaching practice. Collaborative research-action methodology, whenever it gathers elements of ethnographic and etnomethodologic matrices, constituted the very route of investigation, since it was built along with teachers, the co-producers of knowledge produced. From investigative experiences carried out in Brazil, Canada and England, this study designed steps called co-situation, cooperation, and co-production. Developing investigation based on practical epistemology, gave birth to collaborative research-action as the front door to diminishing the distance between two worlds: the one for teaching practice, and the world of academic production on education research; since the collective production of knowledge from art-educators’ subjectivity augmented possible contributions to teachers’ work and formation within this teaching area. Results show that the construction of collaborative knowledge from heterogeneous nature converges to promoting collaborative learning webs, whereas school community is the focus of aesthetical education. To University fits the role of contributing to the development of a reflexive culture that can engage a variety of settings and time, and placing itself as well as an instructive subject, along with the most diverse cultural spaces.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".