Art as ecological practice : a curriculum of movement for teacher education methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This a/r/tographic research investigates the partially accessible forces of movement that engender and co-substantiate experience. It renders an image of a vital socio-geologic ecology consisting of feelings of the energies of movement of all bodies made through struggles of rendering manifest the fullness of experience in its every example. In regards to teacher education methods, this is addressed as both an ecological and aesthetic issue. Feelings of capacity for being affected and for affecting generate more reality. Rather than attempting to separate, unqualified feelings emerging within affects’ temporal events add qualities with an existence and energy of their own. Increasing standardization, accountability schemes and attempted control of quality pose problems for the ecological significance of feelings of capacity to vary. This research addresses methods rather than just the subjects engaged in them to generate an image of a more tightly imbricated ecology that also includes the affects of our practices. It seeks educational experiences where subjects of all kinds subsist to the extent that they resonate with feelings of capacity for being moved and for moving within this ecology. Each chapter re-poses the issue of conveying experience’s simultaneity of continuity and discontinuity. Aesthetic practice and art-making are needed for feelings that precede cognition and for more repeated availability of making determinations within experience which are not simply opportunities for direct exchange but rather tokens of trust for invention and unprecedented space. Drawing concepts from a variety of disciplines, each chapter re-poses educational experience in ways that do not put methods in charge and through aesthetic experience, reconnect to the world by opening to the non-human world of which we are a part. Tending towards teacher education as currere, a living curriculum, this study suggests three qualities of assessment: availability, arrival, and the analog. Through initiating and proliferating creative practices, a/r/tographic methodology in teacher education is encouraged to draw on art’s methods of generating productive entanglements. Repeated affective engagement in creative practice is suggested towards augmenting and sustaining a more inhabitable present and future.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".