A way to awakening: five educators' experiences of integrating contemplative practices into their lives (Ontario)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What are contemplative practices? What do they do? Contemplative practices have been used in various wisdom traditions and more recently in the field of medicine, psychology, social work and education. Educators can benefit from integrating contemplative practices into their lives and these benefits influence their relationship with others, both at work and at home (Gayner, 1999; Mulvayney, 1994; Miller Nozawa, 2002). The author presents an inquiry into experiences and perspectives of five educators' daily contemplative practices. They are used as a way of whole person development emphasized in holistic education (Miller, 1996). We could see teacher development from a more holistic perspective in accordance with already existing need of more planetary-aware and interconnected mindset in our current education. This inquiry provides an insight into how educators' whole-person development occurs through these practices and influences their teaching. It suggests the importance of daily practice such as contemplation for a more holistic teacher education. Educators can teach more from the core of who they are. How we can enhance this "whole-person development" in teacher development becomes increasingly important in our challenging time. Learning can be applied in adult education, transformative learning and holistic education. Sharing educators' experiences in this inquiry will also encourage other educators on a path of whole-person development. This inquiry infused with arts uses qualitative research based on a pilot heuristic study of the author's own experience and interview/dialogue sessions with educators including herself. Participants are colleagues at 01SE/University of Toronto, with various personal and professional backgrounds, who have practiced contemplation including meditation, yoga and Tai Chi for 6 to 15 years. (1) What were their contemplative practices? (2) How contemplative practices were introduced into their lives? (3) What they experienced and learned through integrating contemplative practices into their lives? (4) How their learning took place through their daily contemplative practices? (5) How their learning influenced their perspectives, attitudes and behaviors in their personal and professional lives? (6) What was the role of contemplative practices in their lives? Learning will be synthesized and shared, accompanied by visual arts and poetry to communicate the essence of participants' experiences better.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Qualitative | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Qualitative | low |
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".