Ignoring the Child and The Call for a Good Balance. Aspects of a Phenomenologically Based Theory of Teacher Actions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the possibilities of articulating a theory of teacher actions in light of a critical or constitutive phenomenology of action. Through the use of a video analysis project, a case from a learning session is presented as a point of departure. The general question is whether constitutive phenomenology as a kind of reflective analysis may help to explore and understand the practical knowledge of a teacher in a classroom interacting with children. The situation is deliberately seen from the teacher’s point of view, and seeks to demonstrate how the knowledge of teachers’ actions in relation to a teaching subject, and in interaction with students’ and children’s calls, may be analysed. A general theory of teacher actions is formulated as a dynamic combination or balance of focal and global beliefs, values and practices, while different types of combinations of these phenomenologically described thetic "positionalities" are described to understand ignoring more generally. The ignoring of children in a classroom is further analysed and described according to the German Bildung tradition and the pedagogical paradox of formation. The article also discusses contributions and limitations of phenomenology in pedagogical research, and in relation to teacher student pedagogy in particular.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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".