Contemplative Teachers' Practical Knowledge: Towards Holistic Teacher Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to understand the significance of contemplative practice in fostering teachers’ personal practical knowledge. Teachers’ practical knowledge has been valued to make teaching relevant to students’ real life contexts. However, practical knowledge has been considered difficult to teach because of the diversity and dynamism of reality. Based on the conceptualization that teachers’ contemplative practice could support their practical knowledge development, this qualitative study was carried out through a review of the literature and exploration of direct experiences of four teachers who have linked their contemplative practices to their teaching. The literature review informs us that in order to develop teachers’ practical knowledge, attention, a sense of the whole, and a sense of context are critical. In addition, those qualities can be fostered by non-dual knowing or intuitive knowing which can be developed by contemplation, that is, the act of looking at something by paying attention without thinking of anything else and without premises or judgments. The exploration of the participants’ direct experiences shows that their contemplative practices performed a significant role in fostering personal practical knowledge of self, students, environment, subject matter, curriculum, and instruction and in making their teaching relevant to the students’ real lives from a holistic perspective.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".