Expanding Conceptions of Experiential Learning: A Review of the Five Contemporary Perspectives on Cognition
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article offers a comparison of five distinct currents of thought apparent in recent scholarly writing addressing experiential learning, defined here as a process of human cognition. These five perspectives were selected for their heuristic value in expanding conventional notions of experiential learning, ranging from conceptions of reflective constructions of meaning to psychoanalytic, situated, emancipatory, and ecological theories of learning. A rationale for this typology is outlined, and the problems of classification and comparison of multiple perspectives are discussed. The five perspectives are each described briefly, outlining their view of knowledge, learning, and teaching; their understanding of relations between knower, culture, and knowledge; and critiques and questions raised by other perspectives. Caveats about the limitations and presumptions of such a typology are declared along with invitations for response and critique.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it