MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W264645029

Donald N. Levine. (2006). Powers of the Mind: The Reinvention of Liberal Learning in America

2007· article· en· W264645029 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
George Allan

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l éducation · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueAcademic Freedom and Politics
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLiberal arts educationLiberal educationEliteSociologyCurriculumLawHigher educationPedagogyPolitical sciencePolitics
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Donald N. Levine. (2006). Powers of Mind: The Reinvention of Liberal Learning in America. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 299 pages. ISBN 10:0-226-47552-0; ISBN 13:978-0-226-47553-0 (cloth) In response to the decline of vision of liberal learning as training ground for mature human beings and informed citizens (p. 3), Levine proposes that we examine the repertoire of experiments in liberal learning undertaken in first part of twentieth (4), and in particular to take those occurring at University of Chicago as exemplary, as a source of inspirational and as a model of ways in which local institutional traditions can be drawn on to inspire practice (p. 5). Levine begins by surveying history of liberal learning, its origins as method for creating civilized cultural elite, its medieval and modern development, and its decline under impact of scholarly specialization and growing emphasis on developing individuated autonomous persons. His use of social theorists such as Simmel, Durkheim, and Weber gives this account bite such endeavors typically lack, but it is only fifteen pages long, far too sketchy to do more than tantalize. The heart of Levine's book, comprising over half its length, is story about University of Chicago's undergraduate College, its various experiments from College's creation in 1890 to present in fashioning an undergraduate liberal arts curriculum. Well-known leaders such as presidents Harper and Hutchins and philosophers Dewey and Adler are given their due, but three professors who were also deans are featured: Richard McKeon, with his emphasis on intellectual schemata; Joseph Schwab, with his focus on teaching; and Robert Redfield, with his concern for study of civilizational differences and global understanding. The value of Levine's account is its concreteness. He provides what amounts to case studies of specific individuals at work in specific contexts, creating workable programs. Levine can be criticized in his story-telling for focusing too much on committee battles and other bureaucratic issues, but by doing so he underscores importance in curricular innovation of persons who not only have creative ideas but are also cunningly pragmatic in bringing them to realization and in constantly adapting and readapting them to changing circumstances. Those who pick up Levine's book because of its title will have read two-thirds of it without encountering more than passing references to of mind. In last section of his book, Levine finally approaches this topic by identifying fourfold schema of what he calls contested principles that educators have in when devising educational forms to promote generality, i.e., liberal learning (p. 177). He discusses three of them only briefly--emphasis on the character of learner, on the universe of things to be known, and on the common heritage of humanity--and then focuses on fourth principle, which emphasizes disciplines of knowing and creating, that promote ... all fundamental rather than restricting attention to some particular set of skills (p. 178). These fundamental skills, it turns out, are eight of mind which Levine derives from McKeon and which he suggests are twenty-first century successors to seven liberal arts identified by medieval trivium and quadrivium. Four of powers have to do with prehending: audiovisual powers; kinesthetic powers; powers to interpret, analyze, and apply verbal texts; powers to understanding natural and cultural worlds. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,575
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,995

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,031
Tête enseignante GPT0,295
Écart entre enseignants0,264 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l éducationMême sujetAcademic Freedom and PoliticsTravaux en français237 207