Looking at practices – Can we discover something new by looking at practices? Practice theory and the history of education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In dealing with the material side of educational institutions, and cultures of education and learning, research on the history of education offers new perspectives and research questions. Familiar sources are thus read anew or re-interpreted; new sources are tapped and even familiar categories and forms of thought are subjected to historical interrogation . A practice-theoretical perspective is concerned with linking the reconstruction and analysis of the development and evolution of “pedagogical practices” and technologies. This includes their material conditions, as well as trans-formations of knowledge about growing up in a society, transformations of “pedagogical” types of thought and patterns of reflection, and the emergence of relevant institutions and organiza-tions. In this context, no aspect is regarded as a linear consequence of another, neither are they treated as independent from each other. Yet the question remains open: What exactly does prac-tice-theoretically oriented or practice-based research on the history of education actually do? And how can a perspective on practices reveal something new in the history of education?
 
 DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.15572/ENCO2014.10
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 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 | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".