MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084121270 · doi:10.1080/09523980600926226

The learning sciences: the very idea

2006· article· en· W2084121270 on OpenAlexaff
Liam Rourke, Norm Friesen

Bibliographic record

VenueEducational Media International · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationComputer scienceData scienceSociologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Attempts to frame the study of teaching and learning in explicitly scientific terms are not new, but they have been growing in prominence. Journals, conferences, and centres of learning science are appearing with remarkable frequency. However, in most of these invocations of an educational science, science itself is understood largely in progressivist, positivistic terms. More recent theory, sociology, and everyday practice of science are ignored in favour of appeals to apparently idealized scientific rigour and efficiency. We begin this article by considering a number of examples of prominent scholarship undermining this idealization. We then argue that learning and education are inescapably interpretive activities that can only be configured rhetorically rather than substantially as science. We conclude by arguing for the relevance of a broader and self‐consciously rhetorical/metaphorical conception of science, one that would include the possibility of an interpretive human science. Science et apprentissage: l’idée elle‐même Les tentatives visant à enchâsser l’étude de l’enseignement et de l’apprentissage dans des termes explicitement scientifiques, ne sont pas nouvelles mais elles sont de plus en plus marquées. Des revues, des conférences et des centres de science de l’apprentissage apparaissent de plus en plus fréquemment. Dans la plupart de ces invocations à une science éducative le mot science est toutefois pris dans un sens largement positiviste et progressiste. On ignore en fait les théories, la sociologie et la pratique quotidienne de la science plus récentes au profit d’appels à une apparente rigueur et efficacité scientifiques. Au début de la présente étude, nous examinons un certain nombre d’exemples des recherches de premier plan qui démontent cette idéalisation (e.g. Kuhn, 1996 Kuhn, T. 1996. The structure of scientific revolutions , (3rd edn), Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]; Latour & Woolgar, 1979 Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. 1979. Laboratory life: the social construction of scientific facts, Los Angeles: Sage. [Google Scholar]; Popper, 1999 Popper, K. 1999. All life is problem solving, London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]). Nous avançons ensuite l’idée que l’apprentissage et l’éducation sont de façon incontournable des activités d’interprétation qu’on peut considérer comme science non dans leur substance mais seulement d’un point de vue rhétorique. Dans notre conclusion nous insistons sur la pertinence d’une conception plus large, ouvertement rhétorique et métaphorique de la science, conception qui incluerait la possibilité d’une science humaine explicative. Die Wissenschaft vom Lernen: Die eigentliche Idee Bestrebungen, das Studium von Lehren und Lernen in umfassende wissenschaftliche Begriffe einzupassen sind nicht neu, aber sie sind an Bedeutung gewachsen. Zeitschriften, Konferenzen und Studiencenter befassen sich damit in bemerkenswerter Regelmäßigkeit. Allerdings werden in den meisten dieser Aufrufe von Erziehungswissenschaften die Wissenschaft selbst meist als fortschrittlich und positivistisch verstanden. Neuere Theorien, soziologische Erkenntnisse und tägliche praktische wissenschaftliche Erfahrungen werden zugunsten angeblicher wissenschaftlicher Strenge und Effizienz nicht zur Kenntnis genommen. Zu Beginn dieses Beitrags werden wir etliche Beispiele prominenter Wissenschaft betrachten, die diese Idealisierung unterminieren (z.B. Kuhn,1996 Kuhn, T. 1996. The structure of scientific revolutions , (3rd edn), Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar] ; Latour & Woolgar, 1979 Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. 1979. Laboratory life: the social construction of scientific facts, Los Angeles: Sage. [Google Scholar]; Popper, 1999 Popper, K. 1999. All life is problem solving, London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]). Daraufhin argumentieren wir, dass Lernen und Erziehung unausweichlich interpretative Aktivitäten sind, die eher nur rhetorisch denn substantiell als Wissenschaft dargestellt werden können. Wir schließen damit, dass wir für die Relevanz eines breiten und gehemmteren rhetorisch/metaphorischen Wissenschaftskonzepts eintreten, eines, das auch der Möglichkeit einer interpretativen Humanwissenschaft verpflichtet ist.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.065
Scholarly communication0.0140.018
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0070.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.368 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEducational Media InternationalSame topicInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsFrench-language works237,207