Reclaiming and re-embodying experiential learning through complexity science
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
At a time when ‘informal’ and ‘practice-based’ learning are receiving unprecedented emphasis in lifelong learning debates, this article offers an apologia for experiential learning (EL) in adult education. Taking the position that the signifier of experience allows a foregrounding of the problematics of experience and the centrality of embodiment in learning, the argument does not deny theoretical weaknesses plaguing the experiential learning discourse. In fact, four problems are described in EL theory and practice: ontological splits that ‘lose’ the body; disciplines that control the body; educational management that schools experience; and resulting exclusions. Towards reclaiming a more productive discourse of EL, an argument is presented for conceptually ‘re-embodying’ EL, drawing from complexity science. Three themes of re-embodiment (co-emergence, desire, and struggle) are presented. Pedagogic practices and reconfigured roles for adult educators suggested by these themes are discussed in the final section.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it